3 ms·
Well, this looks like abuse of Cunningham's law, but I'll bite. It is a general rule that general rules have exceptions. And you have (incorrectly) asserted th
by ukj 7y ago
Well, this looks like abuse of Cunningham's law, but I'll bite.
It is a general rule that general rules have exceptions.
And you have (incorrectly) asserted that this is not an exception.
Q.E.D
Even the most powerful languages (Type 0 in the hierarchy) cannot solve the halting problem.
Which is equivalent to Godel's incompleteness theorem.
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710
If a Type 3 grammar can recursively prove its own correctness, it's not a Type 3 grammar!
But if you desperately want to be right, I will happily lie to you (you are right, I am wrong), so I can move on with my life.
- mannykannot 7y agoYour second paragraph is just a direct begging-of-the-question. More significantly, verifying that sentences are well-formed in some language is not the same as proving the language’s correctness. As a response to you argument, consider this regular language: A
- dang 7y agoPlease also stop.
- ukj 7y agoCurry-Howard isomorphism. Proving that a sentences are “well-formed” is the same as implementing an algorithm which takes a string and returns a Boolean. You can call this function “is_well_formed?” I await your proof in the regular language you have specified above.
- dang 7y agoPlease stop.