/sci/ - Science & Math

cool

>>15823053
ok

proof?

>>15823053
>All useful math
That would be counting to 100.

>>15823200
>three digit number
BURN THE WITCH

just because there are multiple, inconsistent ways to interpret a self-referencing system doesn't mean that a discipline for organizing such interpretations will never emerge, evolve, or be considered a worthy problem to tackle by the latest and greatest cutting edge lean mean equation solving incel army machine

For example, consider the standard example
>this sentence is false
We can interpret the reference to the sentence itself as a wiring diagram, and we can interpret evaluation of the content and propagation of its constraint as time. Instead of observing its stable value after an infinite amount of time has elapsed, we model the unstable oscillation of true-false values as a 1-bit counter, operated by a switch.
The discipline for this involves assigning truth values for each sentence to distinct registers and attaching logical circuits that evaluate new truth values given existing ones, like updating an excel spreadsheet.
So, we will update the value of the single boolean register with its negation at each time step. This is a "boolean equation" and multiple self-referencing sentences are a "system of boolean equations."
Instead of trying to "solve" the unsolvable equation
P = ¬ P
we simply turn each propositional letter into an infinite sequence
P[n+1] = ¬ P[n]
Now consider the system of sentences
>this sentence is true iff the next sentence is true
>this sentence is true iff the last sentence is false
we can add labels for clarity
>A: sentence A is true iff sentence B is true
>B: sentence B is true iff sentence A is false
Now the truth values oscillate, but at half the rate
A[1]=B[1]=true
A[2]=true,B[2]=false
A[3]=false,B[3]=false
A[4]=false,B[4]=true
A[5]=B[5]=true
moreover, we can add an element of chance
>A: sentence A is true with probability 10%
>B: sentence B is true iff sentence A is true
>C: sentence C is true iff sentence B is true
>...
and now the system of boolean equations looks like a lightning bolt descending to the ground, traveling one letter per time step, truth being illumination and falsity darkness

>>15823281
>this statement is false
is no more meaningful than
>this statement is true
keep your word salad to yourself

>>15823053
Math doesn't have a solid foundation in formal logic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIkyqLDl9M

>>15823391
Math has a solid foundation in formal logic. I have a yt video explaining it, but I forgot the link. Maybe you can find it? it's on yt. Shouldn't be too hard to find. It's about ten minutes long.

>>15823391
>>15823429
Formal logic doesn't have a solid foundation in transcendental logic.

>>15823436
Transcendental logic has a solid foundation in metaphysical logic.

>>15823448
>metaphysical logic
define please, and show the 'solid' foundation on which transcendental logic is built

Is there a proof assistant that will enforce your philosophy?

>>15825239
I used a slop generator to get a visual, but the result was far too horrifying to post on 4chan.
You May Live to See Man-Made Horrors Beyond Your Comprehension.