scratch/content/html/en/blog/2010-07-09-Indecidabilities.md
Yann Esposito (Yogsototh) 0115b5ef7d First part finished.
2010-08-10 17:22:05 +02:00

263 lines
8.5 KiB
Markdown

-----
isHidden: false
menupriority: 1
kind: article
created_at: 2010-08-01T10:04:31+02:00
title: Undecidabilities
author_name: Yann Esposito
author_uri: yannesposito.com
tags:
- mathematics
- science
- philosophy
- indecidability
-----
begindiv(intro)
<%= tldr %> I prepend to be the creator of a simple world.
And I use this world to give examples of different meanings behind the word _undecidability_:
- Undecidability due to measure errors,
- Big errors resulting from small initial measure error,
- Fractal undecidability ;
- Logic Undecidability.
After that, I try to find what is the best we can do to discover truths.
enddiv
newcorps
# The Undecidabilities
begindiv(intro)
If a demiurge made our world, he certainly had a great sense of humor.
After this read, you should be convinced.
I'll pretend to be him.
I'll create a simplified world.
A world that obey to simple mathematical rules.
And I'll tell you about one of the curse on this world: the *undecidability*.
The inability to know if we had find the *truth*.
The inability to predict many things that should be natural.
Here begin the story.
enddiv
<%= leftblogimage("genesis.png") %>
In the beginning there was only void.
Then a blog post beginning to be written.
I breath profoundly to feel the weight of the act I will accomplish.
A last tense moment and... I _create_ the _Universe_.
An incredible _Universe_ which will exists only the time of this read.
I'm the _demiurge_ of this universe and you are its observer.
I construct this world using only simples rules.
I decide that _real_ rules of this world will be the one we believe are _true_ for our world.
Note the difference.
For their world, everything we _believe_ today is _true_ for them.
Their world is then probably _simpler_ than our.
Particularly, we can describe this world with axioms and mathematic rules.
It is not so sure for our Universe.
But we'll talk about that later.
Lets the work begin.
I create an _Earth_.
I populate it with intelligent people, the _Ys_.
Of course they are curious.
In particular they try to understand their world.
They believe that if they know the rules of their world they will be able to predict the consequences of most of their acts.
They are so naive.
If only they knew.
But I'm here to help them.
I am a God who likes jokes.
The first joke I make to Ys is to make their sense imperfect.
Furthermore it is not possible to make perfect precise measure in my world.
I let Ys ameliorate their technology but there is a theoretical limit to the best precision they can reach.
I'd like to precise that these people believe their world is flat.
Some believe it is possible to find the rules of their Universe.
Now, let the game begins.
Lets start easily, _errors can cause undecidability_.
## Undecidability due to measure errors
Here is what one of them think:
> All triangle I observe seems to share the same property.
> Each time I sum up their angles I obtain π radiants (180°).
> It is certainly a rule of my Universe.
> But how to be certain all triangle in my Universe share this property?
<%= leftblogimage('triangle_3_angles.png') %>
Some began to formalize the problem.
They end by writing a mathematical proof.
Marvelous!
The proof seems correct, but, a problem remains.
The proof is based on rules and axioms.
How to be certain these rules and axioms are right in their world?
They will try to measure again and again the sum of the angles of triangles.
The measure will never fail.
But they'll never be certain the rules and axioms are right.
Because then only way to verify all axioms depends of observation.
And as a facetious god, I forbid perfect measure in observation.
Of course, they prey, they call me to help.
And as any respectful god, I don't answer.
Ah ah ah! I've always loved to make these kind of thing.
Let's act as if I don't exists.
What a good joke!
They feel sad. But they have some hope:
_Hope_
> If we make small measure error, we will make small predictive error.
## Growing errors Undecidability
<%= leftblogimage('3_corps.png') %>
Unfortunately, the three bodies problem will crush this _hope_.
Using Newton's Universal Law of gravitation with two bodies, we can predict with precision what will be their position and speed in the future.
Until there all seems OK.
But now, add another body.
All errors will grow.
Errors will grow at a point that any prediction will be unusable.
Even with this bad news there is the _hope_ to _control_ the error.
> May we should know the maximal measure error we can handle to predict something.
> And we should at least determine what we can predict and what we cannot.
Once again, this should not terminate has they hope.
## Fractal Undecidability
Consider the following question:
<%= leftblogimage('mandelbrot.png') %>
Consider some GPS coordinates on a point around the cost of the "Bretagne" in France.
The coordinates are 3 feet precise.
Is the point in the water or on Earth?
For some coordinates it is not possible to know.
Even if we are authorize to move a bit to dodge the borders.
Because there are some zone in which all point could be a "border" for any size of the zone.
We can even imagine some mathematical structure where _all_ points are at the border[^2].
[^2]: The set $$\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}$$ has this property.
## Logical Undecidability
<%= leftblogimage("stackOverflow.png") %>
Until there all problem were undecidable because of measure _errors_.
May be in a controlled world without any _error_ we should be able to predict anything.
I'm sorry to say no.
Even in a self-contained mathematical world it can be possible to create object with an unpredictable behaviour.
It is the _halting problem_.
Theorem: It is undecidable given a description of a program, whether the program finishes running or will run forever.
The idea of the proof is simple enough to be part of this article.
And this is with pleasure I give you one here.
> Suppose a program able to decide if any program halt exists.
> More precisely:
>
> Hypothesis: there exists a program `P` such that:
>
> - `P(x,y)` return "stop" in a finite amount of time if `x(y)`[^1] will stop running.
> - `P(x,y)` return "loop" in a finite amount of time if `x(y)` will never stop running.
>
> Remark: Any program can be represented as a string. Therefore, a program can be used as the input of another program.
> It is authorized to write `P(x,x)`.
>
> Let `Q` be the following program using the return value of `P`.
> <pre class="twilight">
> Q(x) :
> if P(x,x)="stop" then I enter in an infinite loop
> if P(x,x)="loop" then I stop
> </pre>
>
> Now, what is the value of `P(Q,Q)`?
>
> - if `P(Q,Q)` returns "stop" that imply by construction of `Q` that `P(Q,Q)` returns "loop".
> - if `P(Q,Q)` returns "loop" that means by construction of `Q` that `P(Q,Q)` return "stop".
>
> Therefore there is a contradiction the only way to handle is by the non existence of the program `P`.
[^1]: Meaning `x` taking `y` as input.
I am the demiurge of this imaginary world.
And I cannot know the future of this world.
Therefore, creative power isn't equivalent to omnipotence.
After all this, it becomes difficult to know what we can believe.
But it would be another error to throw away all our knowledge.
The next section discuss about this.
newcorps
# What could we do then?
## Boat Serendipity
<%= leftblogimage("triangle_on_sphere.png") %>
The Ys have boats. And they navigate, the send two boats.
The first to the North and the second to the West.
The first boat stop after one week.
The second make a $$\frac{3}{4}π$$ turn to the right.
After what should have been $$\sqrt{2}$$ weeks, the second boat should have encounter the first boat.
But the north boat seems to have disappeared.
And after sometimes, they discovered the boat is very far to the north north east.
The proof is here.
There was a triangle were sum of its angle is not π radiant (180°).
Yes! Good joke!
As God I'd like all these jokes.
Their world isn't _flat_.
That means, two parallel line have two common point.
They live on a spherical planet.
Huge enough for they didn't notice it for a long time.
Ah Ah Ah! How funny I am!
But I don't know why some don't like my jokes.
The firsts who discovered this little surprise are happy to tell the world and some are annoyed.
Annoyed to the point to burn some of them.
They apparently are bad losers within these people.
And yes, you can draw triangle were the sum of angle is 270° instead of the 180° on a flat world.
For triangle small than many kilometers the error is minimal.
## Rational fractions
<%= leftblogimage("controled_error.png") %>