The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

[Speakpigeon]

I am FORCIBLY violating the law of identity. And guess what?
THE PROGRAM STILL WORKS WITHOUT ERRORS!!!!! <--------------- THIS IS PROOF

You're so stupid you don't even realise your code doesn't violate logic because it cannot evaluate anything as both True and False at the same time.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

So, it's not doing the two comparisons at the same time, you jerk. No contradiction.

I am sorry WHAT. TWO comparisons AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?!?!?!?

HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT IN THIS UNIVERSE? Do you have some magic wand to pause time or something?

Yes?! Hello there!!! Welcome to the real world!!!
Seems you don''t understand logic at all.
EB

[Logik]

If it is true that a computer programme is in some way analogous to a logical proof then please provide a transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof so that we can assess for ourselves what it amounts to.

I don't understand what you mean by ''transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof"?

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts! MY bit of code is not a logical proof. THE WHOLE THING is a logical proof.

My code which runs ON the Python interpreter which runs ON the operating system which runs ON the CPUJ which runs ON logic gates which are made OF transistors which use electricity.

You need to look at and understand THE WHOLE SYSTEM. Not just the 30 lines of code!

If you accept the Curry-Howard isomorphism then it is already transcribed as a logical proof. https://repl.it/repls/StrangeLiquidPolyhedron

Just click the "Run" button. I have made it THAT easy for you!

You won't do it, of course, because you're an ignoramus and a pathetic fraud pretending to understand the Curry-Howard correspondence when you don't.

What is there to mis-understand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs.

It executes without errors and produces an output so it's a valid Mathematical proof.

[Logik]

Yes?! Hello there!!! Welcome to the real world!!!
Seems you don''t understand logic at all.
EB

I am sorry, in which "real world" do YOU live in where time stands still?

YOU don't evaluate TWO things AT THE SAME TIME either! YOU read left-to-right!
Like a Turing Machine or something ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine ).

Don't tell me you forgot take time into account? Such an unfortunate omission!

I guess we have figured out who doesn't understand logic then ?

[Logik]

If it is true that a computer programme is in some way analogous to a logical proof then please provide a transcription of your bit of code

So look. I tried to transcribe this into something you will understand.
Down the abstraction layers I reduced the Python into C++ and then into Assembly.
The transcription is here: https://termbin.com/u9afo

This is the closest I can get this to Boolean logic for you, but from here onwards it's pretty easy. There is a couple of XORs there so you should be on home turf.

Just read through the reference guide for the Intel CPU to figure out what each operator does. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/p ... 325383.pdf

Code: Select all

LBB2_6:
	xorl	%eax, %eax
	movl	%eax, %edi
	movq	_PyFrame_Type@GOTPCREL(%rip), %rcx
	movq	32(%rcx), %rcx
	subq	$8, %rcx
	movq	%rcx, __ZL31__pyx_pyframe_localsplus_offset(%rip)
	callq	_PyTuple_New
	movq	%rax, __ZL17__pyx_empty_tuple(%rip)
	cmpq	$0, __ZL17__pyx_empty_tuple(%rip)
	setne	%dl
	xorb	$-1, %dl
	xorb	$-1, %dl
	xorb	$-1, %dl

It shouldn't take you long. It's just under 14000 lines of Assembly. WAY less than my original estimate of 15 million.

For the sake of transparency/reproducibility (you know, real science) If you want to get the bitcode yourself you can use the program called cython to convert the Python to C++ like this

Code: Select all

cython --cplus -3 proof.p

And then you can use any C++ compiler to turn the C++ into BITCODE like this:

Code: Select all

g++ -S proof.cpp

Can I consider this matter settled then? I have provided you with EVERYTHING you asked for.

So I shall safely conclude that Philosophers are no longer an authority on logic.
Computer scientists are.

[Speakpigeon]

If it is true that a computer programme is in some way analogous to a logical proof then please provide a transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof so that we can assess for ourselves what it amounts to.

I don't understand what you mean by ''transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof"?

I guess you'll have to start by learning the basic of classical logic. There are different types of proofs but you could try Natural Deduction for a start. It's really very easy and your bit of code is also very, very simple, so it should be a piece of cake.
Still, you won't do it because you're a jerk and/or a fraud.
EB

[Logik]

I don't understand what you mean by ''transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof"?

I guess you'll have to start by learning the basic of classical logic. There are different types of proofs but you could try Natural Deduction for a start. It's really very easy and your bit of code is also very, very simple, so it should be a piece of cake.
Still, you won't do it because you're a jerk and/or a fraud.
EB

Seriously dude. Just talk to me like a human. There is no need to abuse Cunningham's law.
We already established that you have no clue what you are talking about. Admit your mistake and lets turn this into a productive discussion.

Here is a snippet of what's to come.

BECAUSE it runs on a computer you are proving the following ALL at the same time:
Completeness.
Consistency
Validity

and BECAUSE the algorithm terminates it proves DECIDABILITY.

So my proof is COMPLETE. CONSISTENT. VALID AND DECIDABLE.

There is no 'natural' and 'unnatural' deduction. Deduction is deduction.

if-then-else. That's it.

I will spell it out for you in ENGLISH. It is possible to have a PROVABLY COMPLETE. CONSISTENT, VALID AND DECIDABLE logic system WITHOUT the laws of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction.

Is this succinct enough?

[Speakpigeon]

Yes?! Hello there!!! Welcome to the real world!!!
Seems you don''t understand logic at all.
EB

I am sorry, in which "real world" do YOU live in where time stands still? YOU don't evaluate TWO things AT THE SAME TIME either! YOU read left-to-right! Like a Turing Machine or something ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine ). Don't tell me you forgot take time into account? Such an unfortunate omission! I guess we have figured out who doesn't understand logic then ?

But it's you who claimed it was doing it at the same time. Look here, it's you:

I have given you a logic system which:
1. ALLOWS FOR A == A => TRUE
2. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IT ALLOWS FOR B == B => FALSE
3. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT EXPLODE!!!!

So, contrary to your stupid claim here, your bit of code does not evaluate A==A as True and B==B as False "at the same time".
What it does instead is that it evaluates A==A as True when using the built-in comparison method and it evaluates A==A as False when it is using your home-made comparison method.
Therefore, it's not doing the two comparisons at the same time as you claimed.
Therefore, there is no contradiction because in between the two comparisons, you change the rules of comparison. Which in itself would prevent the two comparisons being at the same time, if, that is, two comparisons could be done at the same time to start with, which is not the case anyway.
So of course no programme can do two comparisons at the same time, but, hey, it's you who claimed to have done it, you jerk.
Your claim is hopelessly wrong. You're either a fraud or a jerk, and more likely both, because, you know, there's no contradiction there. You can be both a jerk and a fraud at the same time without breaking the Law of Identity. You're the same person being a fraud and a jerk. Do you understand the logic of it?
EB

[Logik]

So, contrary to your stupid claim here, your bit of code does not evaluate A==A as True and B==B as False "at the same time".

YES! My code behaves EXACTLY like a human.
BECAUSE THE COMPUTER IS MODELED AFTER HUMANS.

That is what a Turing machine is! A MODEL of the human mind.

I am using 'at the same time' to mean exactly the same thing YOU mean when you say 'at the same time'.

I am mirroring you!

So please explain to us what you mean by 'at the same time'

You have REALLY missed the forrest for the trees, haven't you?

I have TAKEN AWAY your foundation: Identity
The system does NOT explode.

I have contained the principle of explosion DESPITE A !=A

The system lives without foundation.

[Speakpigeon]

So I shall safely conclude that Philosophers are no longer an authority on logic.
Computer scientists are.

If it is true that a computer programme is in some way analogous to a logical proof then please provide a transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof so that we can assess for ourselves what it amounts to.
I don't see what could possibly be difficult for you there. You're the self-proclaimed expert on Python and you claim you understand logic better than anyone, going as far as calling yourself "Logik", for Christ's sake!!!
But you won't do it, of course, because you're an ignoramus and a pathetic fraud pretending to understand the Curry-Howard correspondence when you don't.
EB

[Logik]

So I shall safely conclude that Philosophers are no longer an authority on logic.
Computer scientists are.

If it is true that a computer programme is in some way analogous to a logical proof then please provide a transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof so that we can assess for ourselves what it amounts to.
I don't see what could possibly be difficult for you there. You're the self-proclaimed expert on Python and you claim you understand logic better than anyone, going as far as calling yourself "Logik", for Christ's sake!!!
But you won't do it, of course, because you're an ignoramus and a pathetic fraud pretending to understand the Curry-Howard correspondence when you don't.
EB

I did EXACTLY what you are asking in the very post that you are quoting.

I have given you the transcript in THREE different Turing-complete logics!

C++, Python and X86 assembly.

There is just no fucking pleasing you!!!!!!!!

Truly. I have NO idea what else you expect from me. Would you like me turn water into wine?

[Speakpigeon]

So I shall safely conclude that Philosophers are no longer an authority on logic.
Computer scientists are.

If it is true that a computer programme is in some way analogous to a logical proof then please provide a transcription of your bit of code into a logical proof so that we can assess for ourselves what it amounts to.
I don't see what could possibly be difficult for you there. You're the self-proclaimed expert on Python and you claim you understand logic better than anyone, going as far as calling yourself "Logik", for Christ's sake!!!
But you won't do it, of course, because you're an ignoramus and a pathetic fraud pretending to understand the Curry-Howard correspondence when you don't.
EB

I did EXACTLY what you are asking in the very post that you are quoting.

I have given you the transcript in THREE different Turing-complete logics!

C++, Python and X86 assembly.

There is just no fucking pleasing you!!!!!!!!

Truly. I have NO idea what else you expect from me. Would you like me turn water into wine?

I want a logical proof.
But you have not a clue what that is because you're a fraud and a dimwit.
EB

[Logik]

I want a logical proof.
But you have not a clue what that is because you're a fraud and a dimwit.
EB

What I have provided you with is logical proof.

Why do you think that it isn't?

[Speakpigeon]

So, contrary to your stupid claim here, your bit of code does not evaluate A==A as True and B==B as False "at the same time".

I am using 'at the same time' to mean exactly the same thing YOU mean when you say 'at the same time'.
So please explain to us what you mean by 'at the same time'

It's you who claimed your programme was doing two comparisons "at the same time". Here:

I have given you a logic system which:
1. ALLOWS FOR A == A => TRUE
2. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IT ALLOWS FOR B == B => FALSE
3. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT EXPLODE!!!!

You're a cheat and an idiot.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I want a logical proof.
But you have not a clue what that is because you're a fraud and a dimwit.
EB

What I have provided you with is logical proof.

Why do you think that it isn't?

Give back the one million dollars I handed you yesterday!
You're insane.
You claimed to have proven classical logic wrong and you don't even know what a logical proof looks like.
There's no use talking to you.
EB