Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simply defining =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 15:08:00 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 53 Message-ID: <875zakwk73.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References:

<87zh820x98.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87imeo1wov.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87a7001bhr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87sgdrz49w.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <874kq7yug9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <4dKdnXavpI9eu4zCnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ft9qy3cn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87imelefjh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87d04ser16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="394e5253794e4583f0b1d277c54f167f"; logging-data="22202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198ts5FK1TNBIDzkd9Cvcon" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qEBvK/kQa2Q3qlyaJrKTU0TiaZ4= sha1:ZClU8D3/SlU6t5Fj0FI/bPVie98= Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:21793 olcott writes: > On 7/18/2020 11:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott writes: >>> On 7/17/2020 9:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott writes: >>>> >>>>> Undecidability as it is currently used in math and computer science is >>>>> like the problem of deciding which of the two Boolean values represent >>>>> the current time. >>>> >>>> You repeat this error frequently. Turing machine halting is undecidable >>>> because there is no TM that correctly determines the halting of every >>>> encoded TM computation. Every such encoding represents TM computation >>>> that either halts or does not halt, so asking which is the case, in >>>> every case, is nothing at all like asking "what time is it, true or >>>> false?". Every halting question is a simple matter of fact -- does it >>>> halt or not. >>>> >>>> Just a reminder... It's 580 days since you incorrectly claimed to have >>>> a pair of impossible "actual Turing machines", "fully encoded". >>>> Everything you've posted on the topic since that has been idle boasting >>>> and excuses as to why you can't post them. >>>> >>> >>> I am making the final changes to the x86 interpretor to transform it >>> into a UTM with x86 as the TM description language. I spent the last >>> three weeks merely getting this system to work under Linux and >>> Windows. >> >> No one wants to see a pile of junk code. If you didn't lie when you >> said you had the TMs, post them. Otherwise you can just keep making >> excuses, because the longer you spare the world from having to find the >> error hidden in a pile of x86 code the better. >> >> Nothing about your key error though. Do you sill want to pretend that >> asking if some entirely properly specified TM does or does not halt on >> some equally well-specified input is akin to asking for the wrong sort >> of answer? >> > > Lets get back to exactly what the standard model of arithmetic is. If > you want to get there through Q that might be OK except that there is > much more material on model theory related to PA. No, let's actually answer Ben's clear and unambiguous question rather than moving the goalposts yet again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */