Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
[..]
Op 05/07/2024 om 00:05 schreef Mild Shock:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
[..]
How about quantum logic where we have not just True and False but also
a superposition of True and False as a third option (where special
conditions apply).
Just like the double-slit experiment in physics that seems to contradict
a variation of the pigeon hole principle. If a particle goes through a barrier where there are two ways to traverse the barrier, it
will go either one way or the other way in case we detect the way
the particle went through the barrier, but in case we refrain from
detecting this information, the particle will go both ways and we can
observe an interference pattern, where the particle interferes with
itself as a consequence of traversing both ways simultaneously.
In classical logic, we would have the intuition that there are only
two possibilities, but modern physics seems to suggest that we can't
really rely on the principle of the excluded middle (or at least
that the principle of the excluded middle only holds under special circumstances).
https://youtu.be/ciLv8xGy33I?t=3018
Terminating intuitionistic calculus
Giulio Fellin and Sara Negri
https://philpapers.org/rec/FELATI
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
A few years ago I was impressed by
the output of either Negri or Plato,
or the two together.
Now they are just an annoyance, all
they show is that they are neither talented
nor have sufficient training.
Just have a look at:
Terminating intuitionistic calculus
Giulio Fellin and Sara Negri
https://philpapers.org/rec/FELATI
Beside the too obvious creative idea and motive
behind it, it is most likely complete useless
nonsense. Already this presentation in the
paper shows utter incompetence:
Γ, A → B ⊢ A Γ, A → B, B ⊢ Δ ----------------------------------------
Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ
Everybody in the business knows that the
looping, resulting from the A → B copying,
is a fact. But can be reduced since the
copying on the right hand side is not needed.
Γ, A → B ⊢ A Γ, B ⊢ Δ --------------------------------
Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ
The above variant is enough. Just like Dragalin
presented the calculus. I really wish people
would completely understand these master pieces,
before they even touch multi consequent calculi:
Mathematical Intuitionism: Introduction to Proof Theory
Albert Grigorevich Dragalin - 1988
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0821845209
Contraction-Free Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Logic
Roy Dyckhoff - 1992
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~fp//courses/atp/cmuonly/D92.pdf
Whats the deeper semantic (sic!) explanation of the
two calculi GHPC and GCPC? I have a Kripke semantics
explanation in my notes, didn't release it yet.
Have Fun!
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Does Quantum Logic (which one?) have a
Curry Howard isomorphism somehow?
Minimal logic is a praconsistent and
paracomplete logic. It rejects both:
/* not provable in minimal logic */
A, ~A |- B % EFQ
/* not provable in minimal logic */
|- ~A v A % LEM
Maybe therefore minimal logic has also
some applications in Quantum Logics?
I saw quantum logic feature in another
conference, its not explicitly listed
in the NCL'24 announcement.
Op 05/07/2024 om 04:06 schreef Mild Shock:
Does Quantum Logic (which one?) have a
Curry Howard isomorphism somehow?
I dunno.. but I reckon that if classical logic gets rejected,
that also undermines the concept of a set (or equivalent concepts like classes or types), since that closely aligns with logic in structure.
Perhaps we can have quantum sets where we can be in a superposition of including and excluding an element.
Maybe that could resolve the Russel Paradox where the
set of all sets is in a superposition of being both an element of
itself and not being an element of itself.
[..]
Minimal logic is a praconsistent and
paracomplete logic. It rejects both:
/* not provable in minimal logic */
A, ~A |- B % EFQ
/* not provable in minimal logic */
|- ~A v A % LEM
Maybe therefore minimal logic has also
some applications in Quantum Logics?
I saw quantum logic feature in another
conference, its not explicitly listed
in the NCL'24 announcement.
Hi,
Check out
Citation: V. N. Grishin, “Predicate and set-theoretic calculi based on logic without contractions”, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 45:1
(1981), 47–68; Math. USSR-Izv., 18:1 (1982), 41–59 https://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=im&paperid=1547&option_lang=eng
Quite interesting idea. If you reformulate
a paradox like for example the liar in
its subliminal form:
X <=> ~X
Which is the same as,
using (A <=> B) := (A => B) & (B => A):
(X => ~X) & (X => ~X)
But we can reformulate the biconditional also as,
using (A <=> B) := (A & B) | (~A & ~B):
(X & ~X) | (~X & ~~X)
If we are allowed to replace ~~X by X, we get:
(X & ~X) | (~X & X)
If & is commutative, we get:
(X & ~X) | (X & ~X)
Now one would use contraction A | A = A, to
get a violation of the Law of Non Contradiction:
X & ~X
But what if this last step, the contraction is
not available per se in the logic? Unfortunately
minimal logic has contraction, you can prove:
/* valid in minimal logic */
A | A => A
sobriquet schrieb:
Op 05/07/2024 om 04:06 schreef Mild Shock:
Does Quantum Logic (which one?) have a
Curry Howard isomorphism somehow?
I dunno.. but I reckon that if classical logic gets rejected,
that also undermines the concept of a set (or equivalent concepts like
classes or types), since that closely aligns with logic in structure.
Perhaps we can have quantum sets where we can be in a superposition of
including and excluding an element.
Maybe that could resolve the Russel Paradox where the
set of all sets is in a superposition of being both an element of
itself and not being an element of itself.
[..]
Minimal logic is a praconsistent and
paracomplete logic. It rejects both:
/* not provable in minimal logic */
A, ~A |- B % EFQ
/* not provable in minimal logic */
|- ~A v A % LEM
Maybe therefore minimal logic has also
some applications in Quantum Logics?
I saw quantum logic feature in another
conference, its not explicitly listed
in the NCL'24 announcement.
Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructive
proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics. https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
The meteoric rise of Curry-Howard isomorphism
and minimal logic, possibly because proof assistants
such as Lean, Agda, etc… all use it, is quite ironic,
in the light of this statement:
Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructive
proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics. https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
There are possibly issues of interdisciplinary
work. For example Sorensen & Urzyczyn in their
Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism say that
the logic LP has no name in literature.
On the other hand Segerbergs paper, shows that
a logic LP, in his labeling JP, that stems from
accepting Peice's Law is equivalent to a logic
accepting Curry's Refutation rule,
i.e the logic JE with:
Γ, A => B |- A
-----------------
Γ |- A
But the logic JE also implies that LEM was added!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
The meteoric rise of Curry-Howard isomorphism
and minimal logic, possibly because proof assistants
such as Lean, Agda, etc… all use it, is quite ironic,
in the light of this statement:
Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructiveMild Shock schrieb:
proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics.
https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf >>
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
But its so easy, was just watching:
Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uy3j4WCiXQ
At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
you can use to explain the Curry-Howard isomorphism:
1 *\ Γ = Context
| \
| * 3 t = λ-Expression
| /
2 */ α = Type
The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.
But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
Actually thridness is not only the art of making
three-fold divisions. Usually one aims a finding
a 3 that is the relation between 1 and 2, so that
we have this relation satisfied:
3(1, 2)
Of course we can have the stance, and say that |-
does that already. Only |- is highly ambigious,
if you see Γ |- α you don't know what was the last
inference rule applied. But for proof extraction
you want exactly know that.
Bye
P.S.: And Peirce isn't wrong when he says thirdness
is enough, just take set theory, which can do all
of mathematics? Its based on this thirdness only:
x ∈ y
The set membership. But set membership is as ugly as |-,
it also doesn't say why an element belongs to a set.
LoL
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
But its so easy, was just watching:
Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uy3j4WCiXQ
At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
you can use to explain the Curry-Howard isomorphism:
1 *\ Γ = Context
| \
| * 3 t = λ-Expression
| /
2 */ α = Type
The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.
But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
In 2023 Dr. Ben Goertzel praised back to
normal, today in 2024 everybody has mysterious
eyeinfections and a new wave is reported:
Flirt-Varianten: Sommer-Coronawelle nimmt Fahrt auf https://www.mdr.de/wissen/medizin-gesundheit/corona-fallzahlen-sommerwelle-100.html
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Actually thridness is not only the art of making
three-fold divisions. Usually one aims a finding
a 3 that is the relation between 1 and 2, so that
we have this relation satisfied:
3(1, 2)
Of course we can have the stance, and say that |-
does that already. Only |- is highly ambigious,
if you see Γ |- α you don't know what was the last
inference rule applied. But for proof extraction
you want exactly know that.
Bye
P.S.: And Peirce isn't wrong when he says thirdness
is enough, just take set theory, which can do all
of mathematics? Its based on this thirdness only:
x ∈ y
The set membership. But set membership is as ugly as |-,
it also doesn't say why an element belongs to a set.
LoL
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
But its so easy, was just watching:
Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uy3j4WCiXQ
At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
you can use to explain the Curry-Howard isomorphism:
1 *\ Γ = Context
| \
| * 3 t = λ-Expression
| /
2 */ α = Type
The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.
But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical
Reasoning) … excellent book
Hi,
I am not halucinating that Negri is nonsense:
This calculus does not terminate (e.g. on Peirce’s
formula). Negri [42] shows how to add a loop-checking
mechanism to ensure termination. The effect on complexity
isn’t yet clear; but the loop-checking is expensive.
Intuitionistic Decision Procedures since Gentzen
The Jägerfest - 2013
https://apt13.unibe.ch/slides/Dyckhoff.pdf
Bye
Sequent calculus offers a good possibility for
exhaustive proof search in propositional logic:
We can check through all the possibilities for
malking a derivation. If none of them worked,
i.e., if each had at least one branch in which
no rule applied and no initial sequent was reached,
the given sequent is underivable. The
symbol |/-, is used for underivability.
The premisses are simpler than the condusion
in all the rules except possibly in the left
premiss of rule L=>. That is the only source
of non-termination. Rules other than L=> can
produce duplication, if an active formula had
another occurrence in the antecedent. This
source of duplication comes to an end.
The sad news is, the book is only
worth some fire wood.
Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical Reasoning)
Interestingly the book uses non-classical
logic, since it says:
Sequent calculus offers a good possibility for
exhaustive proof search in propositional logic:
We can check through all the possibilities for
malking a derivation. If none of them worked,
i.e., if each had at least one branch in which
no rule applied and no initial sequent was reached,
the given sequent is underivable. The
symbol |/-, is used for underivability.
And then it has unprovable:
c. |/- A v ~A
d. |/- ~~A => A
But mostlikely the book has a blind spot, some
serious errors, or totally unfounded claims, since
for example with such a calculus, the unprovability
of Peirce’s Law cannot be shown so easily.
Exhaustive proof search will usually not terminate.
There are some terminating calculi, like Dyckhoffs
LJT, but a naive calculus based on Gentzens take
will not terminate.
The single-succedent sequent calculus of proof
search of Table 4.1 is a relatively recent invention:
Building on the work of Albert Dragalin (1978) on the
invertibility of logical rules in sequent calculi,
Anne Troelstra worked out the details of the proof
theory of this `contraction-free' calculus in the
book Basic Proof Theorv (2000).
Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs
Fischer & Ladner - 1979 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000079900461
The modal systems K, T, S4, S5 (cf. Ladner [16]) are
recognizable subsystems of propositional dynamic logic.
K allows only the modality A,
T allows only the modality A u λ,
S4 allows ordy the modality A*,
S5 allows only the modality (A u A-)*.
Rather read the original, von Plato
takes his wisdom from:
The single-succedent sequent calculus of proof
search of Table 4.1 is a relatively recent invention:
Building on the work of Albert Dragalin (1978) on the
invertibility of logical rules in sequent calculi,
Anne Troelstra worked out the details of the proof
theory of this `contraction-free' calculus in the
book Basic Proof Theorv (2000).
But the book by Troelstra (1939-2019) and
Schwichtenberg (1949 -), doesn’t contain a minimal
logic is decidable theorem, based on some “loop
checking”, as indicated by von Plato on page 78.
The problem situation is similar as in Prolog SLD
resolution, where S stands for selection function.
Since the (L=>) inference rule is not invertible, it
involves a selection function σ,
that picks the active formula:
Γ, A => B |- A Γ, B |- C A selection function σ did pick
------------------------------- (L=>) A => B from the left hand side
Γ, A => B |- C
One selection function might loop, another
selection function might not loop. In Jens Otten
ileansep.p through backtracking over the predicate
select/3 and iterative deepening all selections
are tried. To show unprovability you have to show
looping for all possible selection functions, which
is obviously less trivial than the “root-first proof
search” humbug from von Platos vegan products
store that offers “naturally growing trees”.
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
It is interesting to note that almost all the major subfields of AImirror subfields of philosophy: The AI analogue of philosophy of
linguistics; what philosophers call “practical
reasoning” is called “planning and acting” in
AI; ontology (indeed, much of metaphysics
and epistemology) corresponds to knowledge
representation in AI; and automated reasoning
is one of the AI analogues of logic.
– C.2.1.1 Intentions, practitions, and the ought-to-do.
Should AI workers study philosophy? Yes,
unless they are content to reinvent the wheel
every few days. When AI reinvents a wheel, it is
typically square, or at best hexagonal, and
can only make a few hundred revolutions before
it stops. Philosopher’s wheels, on the other hand,
are perfect circles, require in principle no
lubrication, and can go in at least two directions
at once. Clearly a meeting of minds is in order.
– C.4 Summary
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
The cognitive revolution was an intellectualhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
movement that began in the 1950s as an
interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
processes, from which emerged a new
field known as cognitive science.
You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only havewe lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
Hi,
Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
Turn is characterized as:
The cognitive revolution was an intellectualhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
movement that began in the 1950s as an
interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
processes, from which emerged a new
field known as cognitive science.
The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas
most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current
short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
some long inferencing, like here:
A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles. https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
overcome fallacies such as:
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?
So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.
Jeff Barnett schrieb:
You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only havewe lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute
whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
make predictions when the basic probabilities are
changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
ways, the simulations are often based on air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
capabilities isn't very interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
-- Jeff Barnett
And "cognitive science" has recently pursued
the relation of intentional mental activities
to neural processes in the brain.
Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary
science that deals with the processing of
information in the context of perception,
thinking and decision-making processes,
both in humans and in animals or machines.
BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good
and funny to browse, he reports relatively
unfiltered what we would nowadays call
forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little
pot purry, except for his sections where he
explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan
figures, which are more pure logic of the form.
And peng you get a guy talking pages and
pages about pure and form:
"Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm
But the above is a from species of philosophy
that is endangered now. Its predator are
abstractions on the computer like lambda
calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The
revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only
dead people would be interested in, like
may father, grandfather etc...
Mild Shock schrieb:
My impression Cognitive Science was never
Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.
The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
it is still relative unknown subject,
would explain:
- why my father or mother never tried to
educated me towards cognitive science.
It could be that they are totally blank
in this respect?
- why my grandfather or grandmothers never
tried to educate me towards cognitive
science. Dito It could be that they are totally
blank in this respect?
- it could be that there are rare cases where
some philosophers had already a glimps of
cognitive science. But when I open for
example this booklet:
System der Logic
Friedrich Ueberweg
Bonn - 1868
https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL
One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
for several millennia. What happened in the
1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
Turn is characterized as:
The cognitive revolution was an intellectualhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
movement that began in the 1950s as an
interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
processes, from which emerged a new
field known as cognitive science.
The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas
most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current
short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
some long inferencing, like here:
A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
overcome fallacies such as:
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?
So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.
Jeff Barnett schrieb:
You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only havewe lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute
whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
make predictions when the basic probabilities are
changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
ways, the simulations are often based on air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
capabilities isn't very interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
-- Jeff Barnett
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Well we all know about this rule:
[...]
- Never ask a woman about her age.
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
What a bullshit:
Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets. https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/
Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they
learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
Its amazing how we are in the mists of new buzzwords
such as superintelligence, superhuman, etc… I used
the term “long inferencing” in one post somewhere
for a combination of LLM with a more capable inferencing,
compared to current LLMs that rather show “short inferencing”.
Then just yesterday its was Strawberry and Orion, as the
next leap by OpenAI. Is the leap getting out of control?
OpenAI wanted to do “Superalignment” but lost a figure head.
Now there is new company which wants to do safety-focused
non-narrow AI. But they chose another name. If I translate
superhuman to German I might end with “Übermensch”,
first used by Nietzsche and later by Hitler and the
Nazi regime. How ironic!
Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1037878459
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
Hi,
Not sure whether this cinematic master piece
contains a rendition when I was hunted recently
by a virus and had some hypomanic episodes.
But the chapter "Electromagnetic Waves" is fun:
Three Thousand Years of Longing
https://youtu.be/id8-z5vANvc?t=3881
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Its amazing how we are in the mists of new buzzwords
such as superintelligence, superhuman, etc… I used
the term “long inferencing” in one post somewhere
for a combination of LLM with a more capable inferencing,
compared to current LLMs that rather show “short inferencing”.
Then just yesterday its was Strawberry and Orion, as the
next leap by OpenAI. Is the leap getting out of control?
OpenAI wanted to do “Superalignment” but lost a figure head.
Now there is new company which wants to do safety-focused
non-narrow AI. But they chose another name. If I translate
superhuman to German I might end with “Übermensch”,
first used by Nietzsche and later by Hitler and the
Nazi regime. How ironic!
Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence
https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1037878459
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat
Hi,
MIS is acronym for management information systems.
In the past, people from MIS, offered consulting by means
balanced scorecard, which could be benefitial for companies:
Balanced Scorecard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_scorecard
Now after big data, artificial intelligence, etc.. we can
do text scraping and venture into Luhmanns Autopoiesis,
d.h. Selbsterhaltung durch Nabelschau:
Are we on the right track? an update to Lyytinen
et al.’s commentary on why the old world cannot publish https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1940324
LoL
Gruss, Jan
P.S.: Autopoiesis
Autopoietische Systeme erzeugen und ermöglichen sich
selbst. "Als autopoietisch wollen wir Systeme bezeichnen, die
die Elemente, aus denen sie bestehen, durch die Elementen,
aus denen sie bestehen, selbst produzieren und reproduzieren. (...)
Ein autopoietisches System ist ein selbstreferenziell-zirkulär
geschlossener Zusammenhang von Operationen." https://luhmann.fandom.com/de/wiki/Autopoiesis
Mild Shock schrieb:
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat
You know USA has a problem,
when Oracle enters the race:
To source the 131,072 GPU Al "supercluster,"
Larry Ellison, appealed directly to Jensen Huang,
during a dinner joined by Elon Musk at Nobu.
"I would describe the dinner as me and Elon
begging Jensen for GPUs. Please take our money.
We need you to take more of our money. Please!” https://twitter.com/benitoz/status/1834741314740756621
Meanwhile a contender in Video GenAI
FLUX.1 from Germany, Hurray! With Open Source:
OK. Now I'm Scared... AI Better Than Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMAVWDD-DU
Mild Shock schrieb:
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
The blue are AfD, the green are:
German greens after losing badly https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-suffer-major-loss-of-votes-in-eu-elections-nina-haase-reports/video-69316755
Time to start a yellow party, the first party
with an Artificial Intelligence Ethics agenda?
Bye
P.S.: Here I tried some pigwrestling with
ChatGPT demonstrating Mira Murati is just
a nice face. But ChatGPT is just like a child,
spamming me with large bullets list, from
its huge lexical memory, without any deep
understanding. But it also gave me an interesting
list of potential caliber AI critiques. Any new
Greta Thunberg of Artificial Intelligence
Ethics among them?
Mira Murati Education Background https://chatgpt.com/c/fbc385d4-de8d-4f29-b925-30fac75072d4
Mild Shock schrieb:
What a bullshit:
Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets.
https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/
Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they
learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
ChatGPT is rather dry, giving me always some
choice lists displaying his knowledge. The
interaction is not very "involving".
Could this be improved. There are possibly two
traits missing:
Feelings:
- Emotional states
- Temporariness
- Reaction to external circumstances
- Changeability
- Subjective sensations
Soul:
- Spirituality
- Immortality
- Innermost being
- Essence of an individual
- Deep, enduring aspects of human existence
Mostlikely we will see both traits added to AI.
"Emotional AI" has been more discussed already,
"Spiritual AI" seems to be rather new.
In a "Spiritual AI" Faith would probably be important,
which is probably at the upper end of credulous
reasoning. This means that such a ChatGPT could
also babble that in a Prisoner Dilemma Game,
cooperation is always the better alternative,
e.g. promoting "altruistic" motives, etc.
I also suspect that “Spiritual AI” and “Emotional
AI” could coexist. Many religions give Cosmopolitan
magazin style life advice, and not just theological
dogmas. There will probably soon be an “Inner Engineering”
app from Sadhguru that works with AI. Sadhguru is
also sometimes satirically referred to as Chadguru:
Sat Guru Parody | Carryminati
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlZqxP5MXFs
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
will probably never get a Turing Award or something
for what I did 23 years ago. Why is its reading
count on research gate suddently going up?
Knowledge, Planning and Language,
November 2001
I guess because of this, the same topic takled by
Microsofts recent model GRIN. Shit. I really should
find some investor and pump up a start up!
"Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale more
effectively than dense models due to sparse
computation through expert routing, selectively
activating only a small subset of expert modules." https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.12136
But somehow I am happy with my dolce vita as
it is now... Or maybe I am decepting myself?
P.S.: From the GRIN paper, here you see how
expert domains modules relate with each other:
Figure 6 (b): MoE Routing distribution similarity
across MMLU 57 tasks for the control recipe.
How it started:
How Hezbollah used pagers and couriers to counter
July 9, 2024 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/pagers-drones-how-hezbollah-aims-counter-israels-high-tech-surveillance-2024-07-09/
How its going:
What we know about the Hezbollah pager explosions
Sept 17, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04m913m49o
Mild Shock schrieb:
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 10:27:50 |
| Calls: | 9,781 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,187,185 |