Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.software-eng > #3934
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog, comp.software-eng |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED |
| Date | 2026-02-02 17:55 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10lrdi2$12m9v$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <10lp5t3$angq$2@dont-email.me> <_90gR.163912$gHUb.9737@fx34.iad> <10lqa13$lud0$1@dont-email.me> <FHagR.55765$ugK.50405@fx18.iad> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
On 2/2/2026 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/26 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2026 5:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/1/26 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> HHH simulates DD step-by-step according to the
>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>
>>> IT CAN'T, as it isn't given the C code of DD.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> HHH correctly determines that DD does not have
>>>> a well-founded justification tree within Proof
>>>> theoretic semantics.
>>>
>>> Which is a non-sense sentence as "Hating" isn't based on a
>>> justification tree.
>>>
>>> You are just trying to sound impressive by using fancy words which
>>> you just don't know what they mean,
>>>
>>> It seems you don't understand the very basics of programming or
>>> computation theory.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When HHH is construed as a proof theoretic halting
>>>> prover HHH detects the pathological self-reference
>>>> of its input and rejects DD as non-well-founded on
>>>> this basis.
>>>
>>> But it isn't one, as it is just wrong.
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't understand that thing are what they are.
>>>
>>> You are just proving how STUPID and IGNORANT you are, and that you
>>> are just a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR that just doesn't care what truth is,
>>> because, as a concept, it it just foreign to you.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> % This sentence is not true.
>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>> The Liar Paradox is formally rejected by Prolog
>>>> occurs_check for this same reason.
>>>>
>>>> occurs_check correctly determines that LP does not
>>>> have a well-founded justification tree within Proof
>>>> theoretic semantics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All five LLM systems agree with the above
>>>> this one is the most succinct agreement:
>>>>
>>>> *Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics*
>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCHPA.pdf
>>>>
>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCHPA
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>> publication/400341134_Halting_Problem_and_Proof_Theoretic_Semantics
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> The above paper is one of 8 that explain
>> exactly how I am correct.
>>
>
> No, they just prove you are stupid, ignorant and just a pathological liar.
>
In other words for an actual rebuttal YOU HAVE NOTHING !!!
> I note you haven't even TRIED to rebut any of the errors I have pointed
> out, because you can't.
>
> Sorry, your reputation is just DEAD and waiting for you to join it.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>
My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.<br><br>
This required establishing a new foundation<br>
Back to comp.software-eng | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 21:32 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-02 06:48 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 07:49 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-02 18:46 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 17:55 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-02 23:11 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 22:30 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 07:18 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 09:26 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 21:33 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 20:48 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 22:45 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 22:51 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-04 07:29 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 08:40 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-04 21:29 -0500
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 23:41 -0600
Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 07:18 -0500
csiph-web