Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis

From	phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy, alt.messianic
Subject	Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis
Date	2026-05-16 11:38 -0600
Message-ID	<n6rodbFa5jfU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(24 earlier) <10u93r6$pc64$1@dont-email.me> <qqCcnbnMg--QG5X3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <oRydnV2_FcDAEJX3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <n6rh98F91kcU1@mid.individual.net> <SuadnbsELZ4JO5X3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 05/16/2026 08:37 AM, phoenix wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 05/16/2026 07:58 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 05/15/2026 11:45 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/26 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2026 10:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/26 5:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-05-13 17:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2026 4:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-05-13 09:28, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *The entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... is an ill-defined set which only exists in your mind. There's
>>>>>>>>>> over 8 billion people on earth, all of whom believe different,
>>>>>>>>>> often contradictory things. And, with the exception of 
>>>>>>>>>> theorems of
>>>>>>>>>> formal systems, there is nothing that we know with absolute
>>>>>>>>>> certainty. Only varying degrees of certainty, but for every given
>>>>>>>>>> fact you won't get a universal consensus on exactly how 
>>>>>>>>>> certain we
>>>>>>>>>> are of that fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So maybe cats were never animals and this "belief"
>>>>>>>>> has always been mass psychosis? In actual reality
>>>>>>>>> cats were always a kind of snake?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I propose that a finite set of "atomic facts" of general
>>>>>>>>> knowledge inherently exists and that no 100% concrete
>>>>>>>>> counter-example can ever be found.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you can produce this finite set of atomic facts you're all
>>>>>>>> just bluster. Here's a few statements. Which would you consider
>>>>>>>> atomic facts:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – The Universe is 14 billion years old.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – The Ungulates and the Carnivores form a clade.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – Jesus Christ died for our sins.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – Nearly 70% of the mass-energy of the universe consists of dark
>>>>>>>> energy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – Anthropogenic climate change is currently occurring.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – The Earth is 6000 years old.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – Argentinosaurus is the largest land animal to ever have lived.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – Measles vaccine causes autism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – There exists an "island of stability" where extraheavy elements
>>>>>>>> with approximately 184 neutrons will have a considerably longer
>>>>>>>> half- life than that of the heaviest elements currently know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> – Turing showed that halting cannot be computed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> actually his proof was in regards to circle-free vs circular
>>>>>>> machines, not specifically halting ones. please do read p246 and 
>>>>>>> p247
>>>>>>> of his paper /on computable numbers/ more carefully.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As with Gödel, I don't give a rat's ass about the convoluted
>>>>>> mess of his paper. Unless we boil these things down to their
>>>>>> barest possible essence they greatly exceed the capacity of
>>>>>> any human mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and what he showed was that it cannot be computed by a single turing
>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because he used a fucking dishonest trick that
>>>>>> proof theoretic semantics would toss out on its ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no one has demonstrated any _actual_ turing machine with a halting
>>>>>>> behavior that provably cannot be computed by _any_ machine, as 
>>>>>>> such a
>>>>>>> machine would have under-specified, non-determinable semantics that
>>>>>>> then could not actually exist as a real machine, that any actual
>>>>>>> decider would actually have to decide upon...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the theory of computing has predicated itself on a limitation that
>>>>>>> fundamentally resolves to a catch-22 type paradox that has existed
>>>>>>> since turing wrote his first paper /on computable numbers/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its essentially the same damn thing as the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> that mindless robot humans still have not agreed on. The
>>>>>> brains of most humans are hard-wired to short-circuit. To
>>>>>> woefully fallible humans textbooks are the word of God.
>>>>>> Proof theoretic semantics sees right through this crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it just isn't polcott...
>>>>>
>>>>> the liar's paradox is a sentence that is false, in regards to nothing.
>>>>> what is it false about? who the fuck knows 🤷
>>>>>
>>>>> godel's sentence is a truth, about nothing, that has no proof. what is
>>>>> that truth?? again, who the fuck knows 🤷🤷
>>>>>
>>>>> turing's diagonal, however, is computing an explicitly defined object.
>>>>> it is trying to take the n-th digit from the n-th circle-free machine,
>>>>> and constructing it into the n-th digit of a "diagonal" ... and
>>>>> stumbling on the fact it never defined a digit for itself on that
>>>>> diagonal
>>>>>
>>>>> turing's diagonal isn't a "dishonest" trick. he legitimately got
>>>>> stumped
>>>>> by trying to compute an explicitly defined object, and figured it
>>>>> supported godel's result
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ever heard of Yaroslav Sergeyev?
>>>>
>>>> How about Simon Stevin?
>>>>
>>>> You must have heard of Zeno.
>>>>
>>>> Then, I imagine you remember geometry and the compass and edge,
>>>> and about classical constructions.
>>>>
>>>> So, if you add an Archimedean spiral to compass and edge,
>>>> all of a sudden the "angle-trisection" and "squaring the
>>>> circle" and "doubling the cube" are constructible, since
>>>> it's a new elementary object that happens to fulfill
>>>> making it so that these otherwise "impossible" constructions
>>>> are not impossible any-more.
>>>>
>>>> Have you heard of Ruffini-Abel and the insolvability of
>>>> the quintic? It presumes a limited set of elementary
>>>> functions, it doesn't say the quintic doesn't have
>>>> solutions, only as among some usual elementary functions.
>>>>
>>>> So, Turing didn't have a "Zeno machine" architecture,
>>>> while it's figured that nature in its continuity
>>>> solves Turing problems all the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, mathematical idea of the infinite make for that
>>>> number theorists like Erdos make constructions that
>>>> disagree, about the laws of large numbers and limits
>>>> and the inductive limit (beyond classical constructions),
>>>> the "infinite" limit and the "continuum" limit, make
>>>> for things in mathematics that are called "emergence"
>>>> after "convergence" since "convergence" would never arrive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyways people can look to Mirimanoff who points out
>>>> that an infinitely-many would have an infinitely-grand,
>>>> and then take Goedel's theorem and point out that
>>>> that's the first obvious thing to Goedel's missing
>>>> sentence to be, "extra-ordinary".
>>>>
>>>> It's obvious, or "duh".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And, "The Liar" is false about _nothing_ yet itself.
>>>
>>> It's like, in a world where there is no 'but', only 'yet',
>>> that "the Liar", is the only "but".
>>>
>>> That "there is no but: only yet", is the idea that instead
>>> of excluded-middle being universal, since it isn't and
>>> instead only defines a class of propositions that happen
>>> to be binary predicates, instead that the temporal modal
>>> relevance logic keeps "yet" as proper.
>>>
>>> "There are IFs, there are ANDs, ...,
>>> don't really need any BUTs, ..., yet".
>>>
>>> 'Yet': it's kind of like 'that', and is implicit anywhere.
>>>
>>> Yet that yet that yet that yet that yet that it is so:
>>> that that that that that it is so.
>>>
>>>
>> I find that 'except' paired with 'yet' covers every instance of 'but.'
>> If you can find an exception to this, please show me.
>>
> 
> Perhaps most striking is that "yet" and "but" often could stand
> in for each other in the simple posing or positing of contraries,
> similarly "but not" and "yet not",
> yet "not but" and "not yet" make for entirely opposite sorts
> of suppositions (or suppositiones since Occam), then as with
> regards to, "yet but" as alike "not but" and "but yet" as
> alike either "yet" or "but".
> 
> 
> So, for introducing terms like "multi-valued" or "multi-valent"
> logic, or, the temporal, for time-series data, has it that
> "yet" is overall stronger, more expressive and not less un-ambiguous.
> 
> Then, for an account where a truly classical logic is
> _not_ the quasi-modal, and that "there is no material implication,
> only direct implication", then there is that "yet" instead of
> "but" also makes for the usual account of "assume" that instead
> of "this but that (but this but that ..., fail)" is for along
> the lines of "this yet that: these".
> 
> 
> Anyways I've been using always 'yet' and never 'but'
> for quite some years, and, not missing anything.
> 
> "... but but but but ..." -> contradiction
> "... yet yet yet yet ..." -> contingency
> 
> 
> So, usual accounts of proof-by-contradiction are
> by themselves merely partial and half of accounts,
> of truly classical Chrysippean Aristotlean logic,
> that today is called "modal temporal relevance logic",
> and may include the multi-valent, and has _all_ the
> expressive and decisive power of logic, where,
> for example, that 'but' has not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The "inductive" is very much like the "empirical",
> and "deduction" isn't only about "elimination".
> 
> 
> "There is no but: only yet", reflects that the
> modal and temporally modal relevance logic is
> not about contradictions, instead change.
> 
> 
> The very idea of a Principle of Contradiction
> instead of a Principle of Inversion leads to
> a very simple obstinacy and fallacies like
> those of, "material implication", that aren't so.
> 
> Then a principle of inversion can help arrive
> at a Principle of Sufficient Reason: yet a
> more "Principle of Sufficient, and Thorough, Reason".
> 
> 
> 
> The analytical bridges for abduction about the
> deduction about the impasses of induction, help
> make for the "classical superclassical" reason
> usually attributes to Zeno with the most, "paradoxes",
> that there are none or that there is one a paradox,
> make for a, "wider, fuller dialectic", what makes
> for why "axiomless natural deduction" arrives at
> being the only true theory of Truth, capital Truth.
> 
> 
> Then, that requires a bit of a complete ontological
> commitment, yet at least it's true so won't be wrong. " - 5/31/2025
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well, the "paradoxes" of mathematical logic have kind of
> been "decided" one way, the existence of an ordinary inductive
> set, yet, that doesn't always make sense, since, it's stipulated
> that that's so, and there's no right to do that, except in a theory.
> 
> Induction then carries out into the limit, yet it results being
> entirely timid about, after an "inductive limit", some,
> "infinite limit", about some, "continuum limit".
> 
> Now, everybody knows cases for induction, what's so and
> so for the next is so for any iteration. Yet, in the limit, there
> are cases where induction fails. Besides things like convergence
> laws of mathematics, that sometimes don't hold, like Stirling's
> formula for factorial and various laws of convergence, then
> a graphical example is the yin-yang ad infinitum. A circle has
> a constant coefficient relating its cirumference and diameter,
> it's pi. So, two half circles whose diameter are the radii of
> the outer diameter, have the same sum diameter, so they
> have the same sum circumference. Yet, in the limit, those
> go to zero, and the sum of the flat line in the limit, is only
> 1, or 2, and not pi. So, induction fails, as an example. Then
> the most usual classical example is the Heap or Sorites,
> how many grains is a heap and this sort thing, and how many
> grains less than a heap is no longer a heap and this sort of thing.
> Then, the most direct example about the discrete and continuous
> is about points and lines, that dividing lines doesn't make a point
> and combining points doesn't make a line, yet it's another axiom
> in today's usual axiomatic descriptive set theory that after making
> models of integers and rationals it's axiomatized the least-upper-bound
> property thusly that lines are point-sets, then that uncountability
> sits right there and that's said to be "The foundations of mathematics".
> 
> 
> 
> So anyways: sometimes induction fails.
> 
> Then, it takes a wider, fuller, dialectical account of the
> deductive, than what is a one-side partial account of
> the inductive, to make thorough sense.
> 
> So, things like the branching or halting problems,
> well, these have the baggage of having ordinals and
> cardinals together, about an inductive set, which is
> about ordinals (i.e., that inductive cases are serial,
> besides the fact that a separate apparatus, may
> count them).
> 
> It's not even necessarily a fact that there's a standard
> model of integers at all, only bounded if unbounded fragments
> and actually infinite extensions.
> 
> 
> Some have P(halts) around zero,
> some have P(halts) around one,
> some have P(halts) as about .85,
> some have P(halts) as 1/2."
> 
> 
> 

Except that this is English, and we don't necessarily apply 1/2 to 
'except' and 1/2 to 'yet'. I contend that in some cases either would be 
applicable, amounting to a modicum of overlap, which means that the sum 
of 'except' and 'yet' is likely to be greater than 1.

Speaking figuratively, of course.

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-15 09:54 +0300
  Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-15 06:57 -0500
    Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-16 11:26 +0300
      Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 07:36 -0500
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 10:10 -0700
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 12:27 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 12:36 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 10:47 -0700
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 10:57 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:18 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:26 -0700
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 13:24 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:45 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:59 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 14:47 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 17:04 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 19:41 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 00:49 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 09:04 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 07:52 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 09:58 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 08:14 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 11:53 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 17:24 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 20:43 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 19:13 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 21:25 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 19:32 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 21:42 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 21:28 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 11:54 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-17 11:12 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 08:19 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-18 12:13 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-19 09:15 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-19 10:07 -0700
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-17 09:45 +0300
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 09:29 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-18 12:15 +0300
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 07:59 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-19 11:54 +0300
  Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 07:58 -0500
    Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-19 11:59 +0300
      Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-19 12:21 -0500
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-19 13:58 -0400
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 13:39 -0700
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-03 10:53 +0300
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-03 02:09 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-04 09:15 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-04 00:53 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-05 11:25 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-05 02:28 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-06 10:55 +0300
                a hole in the church turing thesis? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-06 12:40 -0700
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-07 10:18 +0300
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-07 02:00 -0700
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-08 10:19 +0300
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-08 09:06 -0700
                Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 11:58 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-08 10:13 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 12:35 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-08 11:40 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 14:01 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-10 13:06 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 14:12 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 21:14 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:59 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 15:17 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-09 11:10 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-09 11:30 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 07:13 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-10 10:10 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 12:38 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 14:06 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-11 10:24 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 06:44 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-12 10:05 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 08:32 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-05-12 21:02 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 06:18 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-05-13 05:56 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 09:20 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-05-13 08:38 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 10:28 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-05-13 15:37 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 18:40 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:07 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 19:45 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-05-13 19:19 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 00:47 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 20:26 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 22:46 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-15 23:45 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-16 11:42 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-17 17:33 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-18 10:23 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-18 08:58 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-19 10:58 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-19 01:33 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-20 10:42 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-20 01:50 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-21 10:07 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:05 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-22 09:54 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-22 01:51 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 05:08 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 07:58 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 08:29 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 09:37 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 10:16 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 11:38 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 11:44 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 15:30 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 13:22 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 15:21 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 14:46 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 17:10 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 17:24 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 20:46 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 20:48 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 08:14 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 11:03 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 09:44 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis ( P(Halts) = P(Rational) ) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 09:51 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis ( P(Halts) = P(Rational) ) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 10:52 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis ( P(Halts) = P(Rational) ) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 11:14 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 08:02 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 09:54 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 12:29 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-21 11:14 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 17:45 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 22:34 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 21:03 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 21:09 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 00:21 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 00:26 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 08:06 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis --- finally a well reasoned reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 12:01 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis --- finally a well reasoned reply phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 11:17 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-21 22:18 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 08:17 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 11:52 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 14:49 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 15:05 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-18 10:51 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 16:37 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 12:55 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 19:51 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 22:27 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 20:24 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 08:59 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-14 10:54 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 10:30 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-15 08:44 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 09:24 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-16 12:15 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 05:11 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-17 12:03 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-13 12:14 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 06:32 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-14 11:18 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 09:40 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-15 08:48 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 09:27 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-16 12:24 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 05:16 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-17 12:08 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 08:48 -0500
                Using Olcott's system to prove that Trump lied about election fraud olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 15:26 -0500
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-09 11:26 +0300
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-12 20:41 -0700
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-13 12:31 +0300
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 08:00 -0700
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-14 11:27 +0300
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-15 09:55 -0700
                Re: a hole in the church turing thesis? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-16 12:29 +0300
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-20 11:49 +0300
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 08:31 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-21 09:30 +0300
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 08:22 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 10:03 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 02:45 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-23 09:35 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-23 08:32 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-24 09:08 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 10:01 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-25 11:18 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 07:19 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-26 11:17 +0300
                The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 08:37 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-26 20:09 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-27 12:04 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 09:38 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 10:51 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:22 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 09:51 +0300
                The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 11:24 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-25 11:20 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 07:25 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-26 11:09 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 08:22 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-26 20:14 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-27 12:22 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 09:47 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 10:55 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:24 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 09:57 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-30 11:04 +0300

csiph-web