Hi Doug,

Comments below,

-Rich

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:56 PM

To: [ontolog-forum]

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability [Was: using SKOS forcontrolled
values for controlledvocabulary]

On Thu, October 14, 2010 13:15, Rich Cooper said:

> Hi Doug,

> Thanks for you post, you seem to be honestly
trying to understand what I

> meant by the statement "there is no function
that can iterate the primes",

> and perhaps I should have originally said
"directly, without iterating

> other types", which seems to have set off
this mess.

>

> The point is that there is no function which
takes primes as its domain

> and ranges over the primes.

?

Any function that took primes as its range would range
over them.

> For example, you could write a loop like
this:

>

> For I := 2,3,5,7,11,13,...

>

> Do f(I);

>

> Which would loop the domain of f(I) over the
primes,

> but only in a fixed set

> of primes given at compile time, not over an
infinite set of primes,

> limited only by computer word length precision.

If we were limited by computer word length precision,
we could do this

with the fixed set of primes that were at most that
precision.

That approach fits my definition of an
iterator because it takes constant space and time to calculate each iteration. But
it requires the iterator to maintain a list of primes, which consumes space
proportional to the number of primes represented, and again does not fit my
definition of an effective iterator due to the added space, which increases if
you want to increase the range of the iterator.

> Your example function

> G(I) := [calculate new value of nextPrime];

> is a good example because it does not exist as an
iterator.

It was inside the iteration. It was not the
iterator

Exactly, and the function that contains
another iterator inside it is not constant in its consumption of space and
time. Therefore it is not an iterator function in my sense of that word.

> There is no

> G(I) which will directly calculate the Ith prime
(without ineffectively

I think you mean "inefficiently".

No, I mean ineffectively precisely because
it doesn't directly iterate the primes. It iterates the integers and
selects primes based on a test of each integer. That is not constant in
its consumption of space and time.

> iterating over something other than primes in an
inner loop), as in:

> I := 1;

> Do G(I);

It could iterate over a table of primes which was
being filled by a

different thread. The iterator would merely step
through the array.

It could block, not loop, if the array were not full
enough.

Again, not constant in its consumption of
space and time. The table keeps getting bigger when the *different*
thread makes it so. That requires more consumption of space and time each
time inside the "iterator" (using your iterator definition, but not
mine) another prime is added to the table.

Since you are not interested in computing the primes,
but merely

iterating over a list of them, would this be
sufficient?

No, for the reason of consumption being
not constant. The list keeps growing every time a new prime is added.

> I didn't say that primes are not computable; I said
there is no iterator

> of them.

Again, there is no iterator in my sense of
the word, not simply a mathematical abstraction, but an implemented iterator
consuming constant space and time.

> As to expressiveness, the idea is to generate an
infinite set of sentences

> based on combinations of a finite set of
primitives, such as AND, OR, NOT,

> and a finite set of variables and constant
symbols.

If this were randomly generated, most combinations
would be syntactically

invalid. I'm presuming your generator would only
generate syntactically

valid sentences.

Correct; only valid iterators produce
valid new elements of the thing being iterated.

In this case, the iterator of primes would
generate a new prime every time it was called with the previous prime, and
would do so in constant time and space.

> Associating this sequence of primes

[1]

> with expressions made up of the primitives of logic

[2]

> (e.g., AND, OR, NOT and
variables),

> you can generate an infinite number of primes

[3]

> (which by definition are not
factorable) and which

> cannot be expressed as combinations of the
primitive symbols.

Forgive me, but i can not make sense out of this
sentence.

If

[1] is the sequence of all primes

and

[2] is the sequence of all combinations of
primitive logic symbols

and

every element of [1] is associated with an
element of [2]

then

one can generate an infinite set of primes [3]

(which would be a subset of [1])

such that the elements of [3] can not be
expressed as combinations

of primitive symbols.

I am only suggesting iterating the primes,
not that it is necessary to generate an infinite sequence of them. Does
that clear it up for you? Revisit this point if you have more to say on
it, please.

Trivially, this is so, since no integers (including
primes) can be so

expressed. But you can not mean that the
elements of [3] are not

associated with the elements of [2], since [3] is a
subset of [1] and

each element of [1] is by definition associated with
an element of [2].

However, this seems like a discussion of syntax, not
of proof.

I'm guessing that what you intended was to associate
each of a finite set

of axioms with a separate prime. You then map
each possible proof with

the product of the axioms which are used in that
proof. Simplification

rules are also axioms that are mapped to primes.

Using this method, every statement that can be proved
or disproved maps

to (at least) one non-prime positive integer.
And it doesn't matter if

multiple statements might map to the same non-prime
positive integer.

Note that mathematically, A*B = B*A, but if A' and B'
are the sentences

that A & B map to, "A' B'" is a
different sentence from "B' A'".

Your conclusion appears to be that since there are an
infinite number of primes, each of them is mapped to a syntactically valid sentence
that can be neither proved nor disproved.

I don't follow your reasoning on my
conclusion - I didn't say that, so there is some kind of disconnect in your
version versus mine. But it isn't due to an "infinite number of
primes" in my opinion.

However, since you haven't given a rule as to how
sentences are mapped

to positive integers, you have not shown that even one
prime that was

not originally assigned an axiom is mapped to by a
syntactically valid

sentence.

If the prime can't be factored into
smaller primes that are each associated with the AND, OR, NOT and finite set of
constants and variable, Then it never reaches the point of syntactic validity. I
stated that there is no such thing as an iterator (of my definition) which fits
the primes, so it doesn't matter that the expressions are sometimes
syntactically valid and sometimes not so. That debate is beside the
original point, so you are welcome to pursue it on your own.

> The result demonstrates that the newly generated
primes are unique

> expressions that cannot be formed from
combinations of the finite set of

> FOL primitives.

The primes are not expressions.

Each prime is necessarily an atom (which is also an _expression_); that atom
can't be factored into a product of numbers ( which product is a more complex
_expression_).

You presumably mean that they are

mapped to such expressions. However, you have
not provided any mapping

or demonstrated that one exists.

I stated that the first set of primes is associated with the AND, OR,
NOT and finite vars and consts. Products of primes are sequences of
numbers, each of which COULD represent one of the first set of primes,
therefore could represent each of the AND, OR, NOT, vars and consts by that
association. The product of the prime factors comprise an expressed
sentence which can be valid or not valid syntactically.

You have not shown that any integers

map to unique expressions (except the primes which
have been defined as

being mapped to unique sentences).

> The only feasible conclusion is that there is an
infinite number of

> sentences (since there is an infinite number of
primes) which CANNOT be

> expressed as combinations of the finite starting
set of AND, OR, NOT and

> variables and constants.

Without defining a mapping of positive integers to
logical sentences

that will have the property of primes being mapped to
sentences that

are non-provable true or false, this does not follow.

See comments above re associating smaller
primes with AND, OR, ...

> Therefore there are expressions (like in Escher's
drawings) which are not

> well formed, yet which express sentences that
have meaning to the

> observer.

Were you referring to whether sentences are well
formed, instead of

provable? Similar points apply to those which i
brought up above.

And how do you ensure that primes are mapped to
sentences that have

meaning to the observer, but are not well formed?

Not all such sentences have meaning,
but the statement of primes does indeed have meaning. I have no way of
enumerating "meaning", which is a subjective judgment, but the
statement of primes (1,2,3,5,...) is meaningful to me (one such observer).

> Just not to observers who refuse to look at them
- the observer has to

> understand that the Escher drawings are
expressions which are not in

> reality, but which do have meaning nonetheless.

I fail to see what what that has to do with primes or
expressions in

a formal logic.

I know you don't see it, but if you reread
this post, then post a subsequent set of conclusions, we can continue this
until you do. First, start with my meaning of "iterator", which
I am trying to help you put into your language. If the iterator is not
consuming constant space and time, it is not an iterator in the sense that I
mean. Whatever you have to do to put that into your subjective experience
is what needs to be done first. Apparently, that will require further
comments back and forth until we communicate properly.

> Encapsulation of a function that iterates other
things than primes is

> merely

> a distraction from the claim. It doesn't
change the fact that there is no

> DIRECT iterator of primes.

I also fail to see that the existence or not of an
iterator of primes

(by any definition) has anything to do with the
discussion of the

mapping of primes to logical sentences.

See above description of how I assigned
meaning to each sentence.

> Q.E.D.

> If anything looks strange to you, please comment.

It looks quite strange to me. You need to
explain your mapping of

sentences to integers in such a way that each integer
maps to one or

more sentences and that those which the composite
numbers map to

can be proven or disproven, while those which the
primes map to can

not.

See above mapping description. Does that get it across properly?

> I can see you are posting in good faith.

I am sincerely trying to understand what you are
writing.

I know that is true, and I appreciate your
patience in tracking it down.

-Rich

-- doug

> -Rich

>

>

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Rich Cooper

>

> EnglishLogicKernel.com

>

> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

>

> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of doug foxvog

> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:46 AM

> To: [ontolog-forum]

> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability
[Was: using SKOS

> forcontrolled

> values for controlledvocabulary]

>

>

>

> It appears that Rich Cooper's definition of
"iterate" is to loop with

>

> a counter that advances from one element of a set
to the next. It is

>

> unclear what restriction there is on the step
that does the advancement.

>

> It probably has to be a fixed value (like a
FORTRAN DO statement), but

>

> may not be restricted to the number 1.
Rich, do you allow positive

>

> integers other than 1, negative integers, and
non-integers as iterative

>

> steps? It evidently does not include taking
the next element from a

>

> list.

>

>

>

> Rich Cooper's "iterate" does not cover
the more advanced C FOR statement

>

> which allows an arbitrary reassignment of the
loop counter for each

>

> step of the loop. If this were allowed, the
following would be an

>

> iteration of primes.

>

> nextPrime = 2;

>

> for (i = 2, i < upperLimit, i =
nextPrime)

>

> [calculate new value of
nextPrime];

>

>

>

> If the loop counter for Rich Cooper's iterate has
to be a fixed value,

>

> the statement that "there is no function
that can iterate the primes

>

> directly" seems to simply mean that there is
not a fixed integer

>

> difference between all primes.

>

>

>

> Rich, please clarify if this your meaning of the
term "iterate", or

>

> if not, what restrictions you place on the
assignment of the next

>

> value in the iteration. If it has to be
taking the next value from

>

> a list, wouldn't the list of calculated primes be
acceptable? That

>

> could have been done in the 1970s with C,
although not in the 1950s

>

> with FORTRAN II. E.g.:

>

> sieve[0] = 2;

>

> primeCounter = 0;

>

> for (i = sieve[primeCounter++], i
< upperLimit,

>

> i =
sieve[primeCounter++])

>

> <calculate next prime
and store it into sieve[primeCounter]>;

>

>

>

> My definition of "iterate" would
consider this to iterate through the

>

> primes.

>

>

>

> == doug foxvog

>

>

>

> On Thu, October 14, 2010 1:19, Randall R Schulz
said:

>

>> On Wednesday October 13 2010, Rich Cooper
wrote:

>

>

>

>>> The whole point is that there is no
function that will iterate the

>

>>> primes directly. The code you wrote
will EVENTUALLY iterate primes

>

>>> as a BYPRODUCT of iterating integers and
testing them, but that code

>

>>> doesn't produce each prime directly, once
per iteration, without

>

>>> iterating other types.

>

>>

>

>> Then there is no iterator that directly
iterates anything. It's all

>

>> by-products of something else down to the
level of electrons and holes

>

>> cascading through the semiconductor material
from which transistors are

>

>> fabricated. And while the electrons are
(putatively) primitive,

>

>> semiconductor materials are aggregates and
the phenomenon of

>

>> semiconductivity is a bulk property, so there
are deeper levels even

>

>> than that.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>> The method you are using is often called
Eratosthenes' Sieve, which

>

>>> is a well known method to calculate
primes, but NOT to iterate them.

>

>>> The difference is in what is
being enumerated inside the code.

>

>>

>

>> I gotta' say, this sounds like an entirely
specious distinction to me.

>

>> But what do I know? I've only been writing
computer code for 34 years.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>> -Rich

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Randall Schulz

>

>>

>

>>
_________________________________________________________________

>

>> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/

>

>> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/

>

>> Unsubscribe:
mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

>

>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

>

>> To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

>

>> To Post:
mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

>>

>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>
=============================================================

>

> doug foxvog
doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org

>

>

>

> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my
own nation. The great

>

> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to
stop it must be ours."

>

> - Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr.

>

>
=============================================================

>

>

>

>
=============================================================

>

> doug foxvog
doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org

>

>

>

> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my
own nation. The great

>

> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to
stop it must be ours."

>

> - Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr.

>

>
=============================================================

>

>

>

>

>

>
_________________________________________________________________

>

> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/

>

> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/

>

> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

>

> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

>

> To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

>

> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

>

>

>

=============================================================

doug foxvog
doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own
nation. The great

initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop
it must be ours."

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

=============================================================

_________________________________________________________________

Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/

Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/

Unsubscribe:
mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx