All of Mathematics is inconsistent. Turing machines are consistent

2 points by ukj ↗ HN
There is a conflation between identity and equality in Classical logic, but a distinction between these concepts on a Turing machine.

IDENTITY means unique memory address. EQUALITY means contents-of-memory address.

The error in Mathematics is precisely the conflation of identity and value. Or in terms of a physics conception. Mistaking the space-time coordinates with that which occupies them.

In the real world A = A is allowed to be false (when interpreted as identity) because the two "A"s exist at different space-time coordinates. And so what does it mean for TWO individual things to be "equal" are they entangled or what?

Classical logic overloads "=" to mean both identity and equality. That's why it's inconsistent. Classical logic doesn't have UUIDs - computers do. Memory addresses.

   for all x: x = x  => Undefined, Complexity: O(1) to O(∞)
   for all x: id(x) = id(x) => True, Complexity: O(1)   
   for all x: id(x) = x => False, Complexity: O(1)
Further. ALL operators are supposed to do actual, physical work. The energy spent on deriving the correct result of x = x is the proof-of-work.

If x is an infinite-byte object then comparing it to itself should take infinite time e.g machine will not halt, whereas determining its identity is O(1)

Solution to Symbol-grounding problem. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem)

Q.E.D

λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⊇ Mathematics

Feedback welcome.

12 comments

[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
Precisely. The point is that ALL operators do actual, physical work.

Work == Energy. Energy == Proof-of-work.

If X is an infinite-byte object then comparing it to itself should take infinite time, whereas determining its identity is O(1)

Also, I didn't start with set theory to get here. I started with Type theory as foundational.
It's outside my knowledge space. What are the implications to computability or mathematics?
The law of identity is a blunder. It's the Principle of explosion in disguise.

If one x = x can be trivial to determine But another x = x is infinitely complex then in one single law you have a triviality and infinity.

That's the principle of explosion !

(comment deleted)
It's not an inconsistency, it's an axiom: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality
I think they meant it's inconsistent with the 'memory value recorded vs memory address value' distinction in a Turing machine (as in, it's not consistent with its physical instantiation: "the real world"), not inconsistent with axioms of formal logic. I'm getting confused because I think these are two or more different research camps (computability, philosophy, logic, etc) and I don't know how much jargon is shared.

OP's other post's comment is related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19265632

I have tossed set theory out entirely. I consider Lambda foundational.

I am not even talking about comparing sets. I am talking about comparing infinite-precision floats to themselves.

Any system that does it in O(1) is broken.

(comment deleted)
The principle of explosion is hiding in x = x itself!

The complexity of the task is O(1) to O(∞) !!!