Re:Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reason...
by scarmig on Monday September 02, 2024 @12:33AM
(#41422598)
Is there a proof that collections of human neurons are capable of carrying out proofs in first order logic, in full generality?
Re:Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reason...
by fmbb on Monday September 02, 2024 @12:45AM
(#41422647)
Is anyone trying to prove that all humans can?
Re:Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reason...
by gaganyaan on Monday September 02, 2024 @12:51AM
(#41422673)
Can a cat reason? It knows nothing of FOL or math, but can be very smart when figuring out how to catch a mouse.
Re:Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reason...
by Infinity315 on Monday September 02, 2024 @01:46AM
(#41422916)
The term 'reason' is being overloaded here.
The type of 'reason' a cat uses is different from the 'reason' used in math
The information a cat uses is incomplete whereas the information used in math and logic is theoretically all accessible.
The reasoning a cat uses allows for inconsistencies with its model because of its use of incomplete information whereas no inconsistencies are permissible in math and logic.
Formally speaking, math uses deductive reasoning whereas the cat uses abductive reasoning.
Re:Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reason...
by logicchains on Monday September 02, 2024 @03:04AM
(#41423243)
Transformers with chain of thought can use FOL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07923
Re:Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reason...
by Jweb_Guru on Monday September 02, 2024 @10:39PM
(#41430743)
"Turing complete as long as you only use a polynomial number of steps in the size of the input" is another way of saying "not Turing complete" (doubly so when you look at the actual polynomials they're using). In fact, that paper just reaffirms that adding context doesn't improve formal expressive power all that much. And this is not equivalent to "well, Turing Machines are fake anyway because of finite space"--I can pretty trivially write programs in Coq, a total and terminating language, that will take far longer than the age of the universe to normalize but can be described in very little input.
1. Reasoning is ability to at least carry out proofs in FOL (first-order logic). FOL can simulate Turing Mach
2. LLMs are formally equivalent to only a subset of FOL.
Why is this important? To model human mathematics, you need at least first-order logic.
These arguments have been around for decades, e.g., Penrose. I am tired of people bringing up strawmen arguments ("Not intelligent because not human!")