Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.software-eng > #3944

Re: Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics --- VALIDATED

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/3/2026 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/26 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/26 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2026 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/26 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2026 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/26 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, You are just admitting that you can't refute what I said above,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked you to refute the conclusions of the paper
>>>>>> and you ignored that and changed the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I don't need to, as LLMs are known liars
>>>>
>>>> I think that you know that if four LLMs validated
>>>> my work 8 times that you would look pretty stupid
>>>> trying to find any fault when you know there is none.
>>>
>>> That is a NONSENSE statements, just a fallicy of appeal to authority, 
>>> where the athorithy is a known liar.
>>>
>>> Sorry, all you are doing is proving you don't understand what truth 
>>> actually is.
>>>
>>
>> I dared you to find a mistake in the assessment of
>> my work and you already know that you do not even
>> understand the meaning of the words that prove that
>> I am correct:
> 
> I did, and you ignore it.
> 
>>
>> HHH correctly determines that DD does not have
>> *a well-founded justification tree within Proof*
>> *theoretic semantics*
> 
> Whicb is a meaningless statement, as DD isn't a logical statement, but a 
> program, and thus doesn't HAVE a "truth value" but a Halting property.
> 

HHH is not a halt decider it is a proof theoretic
semantics halt prover that has its input finite
string as its entire basis. When for simplicity
we assume that its inference steps are determined
by the semantics of the C programming language
then DD does not specify

*a well-founded justification tree within Proof*
*theoretic semantics*



-- 
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

Thread

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