Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fruitful non-excluded middle

Expand Messages
  • ms@ms.lt
    Edward, Thank you for explaining! I ve included your examples here: http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#992 http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#993 And here is a
    Message 1 of 2 , May 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Edward, Thank you for explaining! I've included your examples here:
      http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#992
      http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#993

      And here is a link to the semiotic square:
      http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#994

      Now I'm working on writing up a brief "general method" for "figuring
      things out". Then I'll show how I apply that to making a living.

      Andrius Kulikauskas, ms@...

      2011.04.25 20:30, Edward Cherlin rašė:
      > 2011/4/25 Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@...>:
      >> Edward, thank you for your letters! They are very helpful. I ask you
      >> also to think of examples where methods, or a kind of thinking, proved
      >> fruitful. You mention the excluded middle. For example, the Lithuanian
      >> semiotician Algirdas Julius Greimas developed the semiotic square
      >> (related to Aristotle's logical square), for example: White Black
      >> Not-Black Not-White. Where Not-White might be "colorlessness" and
      >> Not-Black might be "grey" if I remember correctly. But for my purposes,
      >> I want to document examples where such thinking was actually fruitful.
      >
      > Yale Professor Fred B. Fitch's book, Symbolic Logic presents a system
      > of logic that can be proven consistent. Dropping the law of Excluded
      > Middle was essential to the construction. Gödel's theorem depends on
      > Excluded Middle, so it doesn't apply to this proof of consistency.
      >
      > If R is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves (with
      > further precision required that does not concern us here), then R is a
      > member of R if and only if R is not a member of R. In the presence of
      > Excluded Middle, this results in contradiction. In its absence, it is
      > merely undecidable both in terms of provability and of truth.
      >
      > This idea can be followed into a realm of multiple-valued logics.
      >
      > Buddhist logic considers the possibilities
      >
      > Exists
      > Does not exist
      > Both exists and does not exist
      > Neither exists nor does not exist
      > None of the above
      >
      > as one of many ways of stating that meditation does not work the way you
      think.
      >
      >> I don't want to confuse fruitful and nonfruitful approaches! And I also
      >> want to relate each way of thinking with the kinds of results it yields.
      >>
      >> I'm always wondering how I could make a living from documenting and
      >> sharing "ways of figuring things out". Perhaps I should do that for
      >> business and economics.
      >
      > It's known as becoming a professor or a published writer.
      >
      > Separately, however, you would be welcome to contribute to our
      > analysis of business and economics for schoolchildren in developing
      > countries, where the dogmas of conventional economics are revealed to
      > be the airiest fantasies.
      >
      >> Thank you for thinking along with me!
      >>
      >> Andrius
      >>
      >> Andrius Kulikauskas
      >> http://www.selflearners.net
      >> ms@...
      >> (773) 306-3807
      >> Twitter: @selflearners
      >>
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------
      >>
      >> Each letter sent to Learning From Each Other enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN
      unless it explicitly states otherwise
      http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org Please be kind to our
      authors!Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
    • Edward Cherlin
      ... I forgot to mention that the general case of figuring things out is formally undecidable, and cannot be reduced to a fully general method. There are
      Message 2 of 2 , May 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 15:10, <ms@...> wrote:
        > Edward, Thank you for explaining! I've included your examples here:
        > http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#992
        > http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#993
        >
        > And here is a link to the semiotic square:
        > http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#994
        >
        > Now I'm working on writing up a brief "general method" for "figuring
        > things out".  Then I'll show how I apply that to making a living.

        I forgot to mention that the general case of figuring things out is
        formally undecidable, and cannot be reduced to a fully general method.
        There are innumerable examples. One of the first was the Halting
        Problem for Turing machines, and thus for all computers we know of.
        The problem is that the set of theorems in a first-order theory is
        recursively enumerable (there is a process for generating them, one by
        one, that will eventually get to each and every one) but the set of
        non-theorems is not. So if our theorem generator has not produced a
        particular statement or its denial as a theorem, we do not know which
        set it falls into: theorem, denial of a theorem, or undecidable
        statement.

        Any system that can represent all statements and proofs in a
        first-order theory is also undecidable. This includes tiling problems
        and Diophantine equations (Hilbert's Tenth Problem).

        Second- and higher-order theories with arithmetic are inherently
        undecidable, because they have more than countably many theorems, and
        we can only prove a countable subset.

        > Andrius Kulikauskas, ms@...
        >
        > 2011.04.25 20:30, Edward Cherlin rašė:
        >> 2011/4/25 Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@...>:
        >>> Edward, thank you for your letters!  They are very helpful.  I ask you
        >>> also to think of examples where methods, or a kind of thinking, proved
        >>> fruitful.  You mention the excluded middle.  For example, the Lithuanian
        >>> semiotician Algirdas Julius Greimas developed the semiotic square
        >>> (related to Aristotle's logical square), for example:  White   Black
        >>> Not-Black  Not-White.  Where Not-White might be "colorlessness" and
        >>> Not-Black might be "grey" if I remember correctly.  But for my purposes,
        >>> I want to document examples where such thinking was actually fruitful.
        >>
        >> Yale Professor Fred B. Fitch's book, Symbolic Logic presents a system
        >> of logic that can be proven consistent. Dropping the law of Excluded
        >> Middle was essential to the construction. Gödel's theorem depends on
        >> Excluded Middle, so it doesn't apply to this proof of consistency.
        >>
        >> If R is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves (with
        >> further precision required that does not concern us here), then R is a
        >> member of R if and only if R is not a member of R. In the presence of
        >> Excluded Middle, this results in contradiction. In its absence, it is
        >> merely undecidable both in terms of provability and of truth.
        >>
        >> This idea can be followed into a realm of multiple-valued logics.
        >>
        >> Buddhist logic considers the possibilities
        >>
        >> Exists
        >> Does not exist
        >> Both exists and does not exist
        >> Neither exists nor does not exist
        >> None of the above
        >>
        >> as one of many ways of stating that meditation does not work the way you
        > think.
        >>
        >>> I don't want to confuse fruitful and nonfruitful approaches!  And I also
        >>> want to relate each way of thinking with the kinds of results it yields.
        >>>
        >>> I'm always wondering how I could make a living from documenting and
        >>> sharing "ways of figuring things out".  Perhaps I should do that for
        >>> business and economics.
        >>
        >> It's known as becoming a professor or a published writer.
        >>
        >> Separately, however, you would be welcome to contribute to our
        >> analysis of business and economics for schoolchildren in developing
        >> countries, where the dogmas of conventional economics are revealed to
        >> be the airiest fantasies.
        >>
        >>> Thank you for thinking along with me!
        >>>
        >>> Andrius
        >>>
        >>> Andrius Kulikauskas
        >>> http://www.selflearners.net
        >>> ms@...
        >>> (773) 306-3807
        >>> Twitter: @selflearners
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> ------------------------------------
        >>>
        >>> Each letter sent to Learning From Each Other enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN
        > unless it explicitly states otherwise
        > http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org  Please be kind to our
        > authors!Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Each letter sent to Learning From Each Other enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN unless it explicitly states otherwise http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org  Please be kind to our authors!Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >



        --
        Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin
        Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation.
        The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination.
        http://www.earthtreasury.org/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.