Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!cs.utk.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose and human mathematical capabilities
Message-ID: <jqbDBLI1q.EyF@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t6tcv$nca@netnews.upenn.edu> <3tra4b$em9@netnews.upenn.edu> <3tsi61$t7g@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> <3ttskd$fo7@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 08:53:50 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Lines: 24
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29985 sci.logic:12231

In article <3ttskd$fo7@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>There have been no correct challenges to Goedel's proof.  The theorem
>is valid, and in the context of a programmed robot, there is no such
>thing--no ifs ands or buts--as a consistent, complete "truth judgement"
>that extends beyond such AI victories as checkers and other finite junk.

Since there is no need for "truth judgement" to be consistent or complete,
this, like most of your stuff, is vacuous.  A robot that made only claims
that were hailed by mathematicians as true, except that it mistakenly claimed
that the four-color theorem is unsolvable, would be inconsistent but would be
of some value.  And you don't know much about AI if you think that checkers
programs do their work by building up a consistent, and eventually complete,
set of theorems concerning checkers.  Real checkers and chess programs
most likely make some moves that allow forced wins by their opponents.
Since their goal is to state only "propositions" (moves) about the game
that lead to the best possible result, they are formally inconsistent.  BFD.




-- 
<J Q B>

