You’re right, but what have we done with that knowledge?

Avoided the necessity of 1st order logic and moved into a whole technological blossoming by that avoidance of 1st order logic and moved onto 2nd order logic in the form of Computational Complexity.

——

Computers did not exist until afterwards BECAUSE OF (not in spite of) Godel’s proof,

You can trace the timeline because it is a cause and effect relationship.

Godel’s dissertation: “The Completeness of the Axioms of the First-Order Functional Calculus, solved an open problem that David Hilbert and Wilhelm Ackermann had posed in their 1928 textbook Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik (Foundations of Theoretical Logic).”

From that followed:

“On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, published in German in 1931″

from there, the work of Church and Turing followed

“In 1936, Alonzo Church created a method for defining functions called the λ-calculus.”

“Also in 1936, before learning of Church’s work, Alan Turing created a theoretical model for machines, now called Turing machines, that could carry out calculations from inputs by manipulating symbols on a tape.”

from that? Computing was possible.

——

Computing bypasses the problem by introducing Time/steps.

In that way, every small movement must be complete before continuing.

But the entire program does not have to make sense. It only to compile properly.

=======

We teach the history of computing all wrong when we focus on Babbage.

Go from Gödel to Turing + Church onto the engineering then to computer languages.

======

The magic of computing is in the steps.

It’s a “stack” of logical statements, all loosely affiliated but who, in total, do not have to have anything to do with one other.

======

I can make a computer say: 1 = -1.

I just did.

It’s so everyday that we hardly stop to consider how amazing this power is.

======

Now just imagine a situation where EVERYTHING you feed into a computer had to be logically consistent in a first order logic manner?

Couldn’t do much with that.

======

I’m using Time = change (as opposed to Platonic realm, where Logic and Math work in an eternal plane).

It just so happens our computers use a clock, although they don’t have to.

======

You can have a computer which completely lacks any database and only has a stack from which is a queue that operates in sequence.

If you use two stacks, you can have stack 1 pull items out of sequence from stack two, so that instead of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, it’s 3, 2, 2, 2, 4.

=======

There’s always at least 1 sequence, be it a clock or a stack of plates that automatically fall when you pull the bottom one out.

But what happens at each “tick” or plate movement doesn’t matter. It’s “moving stuff around”. What that stuff is doesn’t matter.

=======

Looking it up now: 1954. Post Church/Turing, already in computer era. Probably inspired by computing. A retrofit.

Thing is: it may describe all possibilities, but a computer does not function upon all possibilities, only what step it’s currently on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codomain

=====

concurrent logic programming”.

The general user says, “Sure I can”One is reasoning things via their expert niche, one is reasoning via a more generally applicable usage.Commonly I find this in arguments over the words, “religion”, “reason” and “logic” although lately I’ve seen a lot of this problem when folks discuss politics, between “left”, “liberal” and “right”.

is a good sample of

“everything turns into underinformed speculation.” (DB)

a) The future is uncertain.

b) You do not have all of the variables.Godel implied this.The work of Church/Turing solves this by sidestepping the need for a complete first order algebra, operating over time with flexible variables by allowing swapping of identity (lambda calculus), etc.

“Lambda calculus (also written as λ-calculus) is a formal system in mathematical logic for expressing computation based on function abstraction and application using variable binding and substitution. It is a universal model of computation that can be used to simulate any Turing machine.”

But we’re far closer to Turing machines utilizing Lambda Calculus than we are to propositional logic.

You are low accuracy, high precision.Dave’s point _is_ all over the place but it has a center, which I can see.But you’re missing his point, and you are stuck in a corner whereby you’re looking for high precision (formal logic) when he isn’t talking about formal logic.

=====

a) I’m sitting on a chair with a cup of coffee, doing this and other things.

b) I enjoying engaging with and watching intelligent people engage with each other and me in close to real time. (live)

c) I’m emotionally distanced from an online conversation as I’m sitting in a comfortable ugly chair drinking a cup of coffee.

d) If you’re on my friends list, you’re probably smarter than me. I like to learn by engaging, challenging and being challenged.

e) Dave is wrong in his delivery and conclusion about the wallet story.

f) I have yet to respond to Alex’ counterpoints in other threads about Godel –> Church/Turing connection and how you can complete something by working around it and moving forward anyway.

Person B can’t keep a secret but they can be trusted to watch your stuff.

etc

Carried that with me as “mine”.

Six months ago, I finally looked it up. 30 years as “my quote”, such a clever boy was I.

But no. It was from some motivational guy. I forgot who. Word for word. Probably heard it on TV. Oh well. Not so clever.

Now it’s past 3000 with this part. Epic.