Philosophy Now Forum

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:33 am It is already written without cycles, the entire function would be parsed into an acyclic parse tree.

I see! So you are going to represent a possibly non-halting, recursive function as a single node in your acyclic graph.
Basically, you are sweeping the Elephant in the room (the actual evaluation of a possibly non-halting, recursive function) under the carpet by moving it from compile-time to run-time.

Your approach boils down to something David J. Wheeler said. We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection.

I guess, all you need to solve the halting problem is one of these and parse it into an acyclic tree...

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:16 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:52 pm

This always parses a PARSE TREE: (Trees never have cycles)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

False, they are diverging cycles within cycles:

A -> B=(A,A) and C= AAA

B-> D=(B,B) and F= (BBBB)

C-> E = (C,C) and G = (CCC)

Etc.

None of that is BNF.

That is still a tree.

Animal as the apex in a hierarchy with cow as a subset necessitates:

Animal -> cow(animal) as animal -> animal.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:21 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:35 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:01 am
Here is your Unicorn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%E2% ... on_theorem

You left out too much relevant context with your (....)

Liar. I gave you an example where True(x) != Provable(x)

Quote it again in total or I will not respond.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:06 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:28 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:56 pm
So you reject recursion!

No. I never said that. BNF stipulates recursion.

Pete, what is the process of turning a recursive function into a graph.

How do you parse a recursion without evaluating it?

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:50 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:53 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:48 pm
We are talking about your coding standard.

Does your coding standard allow self-reference. Yes? No? Maybe? Sometimes?

If Y is allowed to have self-reference, why is X not allowed to have self-reference?

The coding standard rejects any code that results in an evaluation
sequence that cannot be expressed as a directed acyclic graph.

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... lic_term/1

Then the last variable seals off the string and makes it an assumption that is not completely defined except as a point of inversion for one string to go to another...effectively it means nothing in and of itself.

No words mean anything apart from heir relation to other words.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:06 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:52 pm This always parses a PARSE TREE: (Trees never have cycles)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

How do you generate the parse tree from a recursive function?
How deep is the parse tree of a recursive function?

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:41 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:16 pm

False, they are diverging cycles within cycles:

A -> B=(A,A) and C= AAA

B-> D=(B,B) and F= (BBBB)

C-> E = (C,C) and G = (CCC)

Etc.

None of that is BNF.

That is still a tree.

Animal as the apex in a hierarchy with cow as a subset necessitates:

Animal -> cow(animal) as animal -> animal.

It is a directed acyclic graph
thing<---organism<---animal<---cow

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:43 pm Quote it again in total or I will not respond.

OK. Then don't respond. Waste another 30 years of your life. What do I care?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:25 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:33 am It is already written without cycles, the entire function would be parsed into an acyclic parse tree.

I see! So you are going to represent a possibly non-halting, recursive function as a single node in your acyclic graph.
Basically, you are sweeping the Elephant in the room (the actual evaluation of a possibly non-halting, recursive function) under the carpet by moving it from compile-time to run-time.

Your approach boils down to something David J. Wheeler said. We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection.

I guess, all you need to solve the halting problem is one of these and parse it into an acyclic tree...

To the best of my current knowledge I have already refuted all of the halting problem proofs.

Your critiques may have shown that there are some aspects of conceptual knowledge that
cannot be sufficiently represented in an acyclic directed graph.

I suspected this previously when no one could show me how lambda calculus could handle
integer addition on the basis of ASCII digit strings.

Most of the elements of the set of conceptual knowledge can be exhaustively defined in
a directed acyclic graph. Some of these elements may require finite string manipulation
algorithms.

My primary claim remains: The entire set of conceptual knowledge can be fully represented
as stipulated relations between finite strings. Some of these relations may require an algorithm.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:08 pm To the best of my current knowledge I have already refuted all of the halting problem proofs.

But you still haven't claimed your Million dollars for solving P=NP. Why?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:08 pm I suspected this previously when no one could show me how lambda calculus could handle
integer addition on the basis of ASCII digit strings.

Trivially. You teach the Peano algorithms (or any other arithmetic algorithm) to your Turing machine. This is the first-principles approach, but in 2019 most of this logic is built into the silicon of your CPU - so you don't have to worry about it.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:08 pm Most of the elements of the set of conceptual knowledge can be exhaustively defined in
a directed acyclic graph.

You can't prove that for non-halting functions.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:08 pm My primary claim remains: The entire set of conceptual knowledge can be fully represented
as stipulated relations between finite strings. Some of these relations may require an algorithm.

And some of those algorithms don't halt.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:50 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:53 pm

The coding standard rejects any code that results in an evaluation
sequence that cannot be expressed as a directed acyclic graph.

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... lic_term/1

Then the last variable seals off the string and makes it an assumption that is not completely defined except as a point of inversion for one string to go to another...effectively it means nothing in and of itself.

No words mean anything apart from heir relation to other words.

Yes, and when the relation is incomplete the words mean nothing in themselves.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:41 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:41 pm

None of that is BNF.

That is still a tree.

Animal as the apex in a hierarchy with cow as a subset necessitates:

Animal -> cow(animal) as animal -> animal.

It is a directed acyclic graph
thing<---organism<---animal<---cow

Rofl...up and down are relative, they are just alternating dualisms.

(t → (o,a,c) ∴ ⟳ (t,o,a,c)) ↔ ((t ← o ← a ← c) = t ∋ (o,a,c))

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:45 pm No words mean anything apart from heir relation to other words.

You got this exactly backwards. Words mean absolutely nothing. Until they are grounded e.g interpreted by something or someone.

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

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:53 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:43 pm Quote it again in total or I will not respond.

OK. Then don't respond. Waste another 30 years of your life. What do I care?

I consider failing to provide full context an act of dishonesty. At least 90% of my
respondents on numerous forums have no interest what-so-ever in understanding
what I am saying and only focus on rebuttal.

50% of my respondents will focus on rebuttal even if they have to lie to do so.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:15 pm I consider failing to provide full context an act of dishonesty. At least 90% of my
respondents on numerous forums have no interest what-so-ever in understanding
what I am saying and only focus on rebuttal.

50% of my respondents will focus on rebuttal even if they have to lie to do so.

Pete. I am demonstrating such high holistic understanding of what you are trying to do that for every 5-paragraph idea you explain I have 1 concise wiki link.

If you want your idea to work - you have to make trade-offs. There is no such thing as free lunch.
If you want totality (decidability) - you lose recursion.

Take it or leave it. This universe doesn't care that this upsets you.