XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: abelard3@abelard.org 
  
 On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 16:11:37 +0100, Andy Walker  
 wrote: 
  
 >On 22/10/2019 00:31, abelard wrote: 
 >[...] 
 >> i don't believe conceptual computers which are foundationally 
 >>      based on empirically unsound theories(aristotelian logic) an be 
 >>      useful... 
 > 
 > Luckily, real computers are not so based, and therefore can 
 >be useful.  Turing's original work on this was intended to try to 
 >construct a theory of what it is that real people do when they do 
 >mathematics;  which is why he conceived of a Turing machine as much 
 >the same as a person following instructions and writing the results 
 >on a stack of paper.  In the end, this is what enabled replacement 
 >of [eg] people solving differential equations [or breaking codes] 
 >by computer programs doing the same thing.  I consider that useful; 
 >we would [eg] have had great difficulty winning WW2 without it. 
 >YMMV. 
 > 
 >> but i'm happy for others(yourself in included) to try :-) 
 >> 'your' t-c-g logic will break your computer before it returns anything 
 >>     useful... 
 > 
 > T-C isn't "logic";  it's a thesis, founded entirely on 
 >observation and pragmatism.  If you find a new effective way to 
 >compute things that breaks T-C, then so be it, and a whole new 
 >vista of computing will open up.  But most of us consider that 
 >unlikely, and I don't propose to waste my declining years in a 
 >search for something that almost certainly doesn't exist.  As for 
 >G, that isn't exactly "logic" either;  it's a theorem.  At the 
 >time it was rather startling and unexpected.  But with benefit 
 >of hindsight, it's rather plausible, partly/largely because we 
 >now know much better than in the 1920s what computers can do -- 
 >and, just as importantly, can't do. 
 > 
 > If "my" "t-c-g" "logic" tells me that something can't be 
 >done, you're welcome to disbelieve me and try whatever you like. 
 >It's not meant to "return" anything, rather to save you wasting 
 >your time looking for unicorns and sunlit uplands.  But a proof 
 >in mathematics is a great deal more certain than a proof in [eg] 
 >physics.  I don't know whether, despite Einstein, practical faster- 
 >than-light travel may ultimately prove possible, with or without 
 >the help of Alcubierre;  I expect not, but I wouldn't go to the 
 >stake on the issue.  But I am as certain as can be that you will 
 >never find two strictly positive integers p and q such that 
 >(p/q) == 2. 
 > 
 > May be worth noting that the standard proof of the 
 >unsolvability of the "halting problem", a magnet for cranks, 
 >is what I call a "destructive" proof;  if you come to me with 
 >a program that you claim solves the problem, I don't need to 
 >waste time searching for the bug in your program, the "proof" 
 >provides me directly with a program, based on yours, that your 
 >program will fail on. 
  
 i have a thesis that you cannot fly in earth atmosphere 
     merely by flapping your ears fast enough 
  
 whether you call it thesis, law or logic is not the  point... 
     empirics is the  point... 
  
 as for maths, it is also is  a structure of rules which simply 
     don't work when pressed... 
     eg 1 does not  = 2...the notion of equals(=) is empiric 
     nonsense... 
 you don't need t-c-g to 'prove' it 
  
 computing works fine(quite well) on many a crude problem.... 
     for many another problem it is just merely far too crude 
  
  
 https://www.abelard.org/category/category.php 
 Poincare stated €Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to 
 different things€. [15] 
  
 Skolem writes €The use of the equal sign in what follows is always to 
 be understood in the sense that two names or expressions mean or 
 designate the same thing€. [16] 
  
 Jefferson declared, €all men are created equal€. [17] 
  
  
 you don't even know with any 'precision' what 'thesis' means in the 
    mind of another 
  
 -- 
 www.abelard.org 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)