Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #122761 > unrolled thread

I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 08:56 -0500
    Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 16:21 +0200
      Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 09:27 -0500
        Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:19 +0100
      Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 13:18 -0700
        Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 20:25 +0100
          Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 13:00 -0700
        Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 02:18 -0500
        Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 12:17 -0500
          Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 16:09 -0500
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 22:15 +0000
          Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 19:28 +0000
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-26 14:00 -0600
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 17:22 -0500
              Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 19:49 -0700
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-27 12:59 +0200
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 10:47 -0500
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 20:35 +0000
              Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 12:52 +1000
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 14:49 -0500
          Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 19:01 +0100
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 13:10 -0500
        Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 10:56 -0500
          Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 20:32 +0200
            Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 13:56 -0500
          Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 18:05 +0100
          Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 11:22 -0500
        Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 17:44 +0200
    Expanding on Rice's Theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 21:35 -0500
    I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- ALL DETAILS PROVIDED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 08:10 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#122761 — I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem

Does there exist a single halt decider that can
compute the mapping from its finite string input(s)
to an accept or reject value on the basis of the
semantic halting property specified by this/these
finite string input(s) for all inputs?

*Defines a different result as shown below*

 From just my own two sentences (a) and (b) five LLM
systems figured out how to correctly decide the halting
problem's counter example input.

They all figured out the recursive simulation non-halting
behavior pattern on their own.

<Input to LLM systems>
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
  (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
      abort simulation and return 0.
  (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement:
      return 1.

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
  {
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
  }

What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>

*Here are the best three*
https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c

https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21-eedd0f09e141 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#122762

Am 25.09.2025 um 15:56 schrieb olcott:
> Does there exist a single halt decider that can
> compute the mapping from its finite string input(s)
> to an accept or reject value on the basis of the
> semantic halting property specified by this/these
> finite string input(s) for all inputs?
> 
> *Defines a different result as shown below*
> 
>  From just my own two sentences (a) and (b) five LLM
> systems figured out how to correctly decide the halting
> problem's counter example input.
> 
> They all figured out the recursive simulation non-halting
> behavior pattern on their own.
> 
> <Input to LLM systems>
> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>   (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
>       abort simulation and return 0.
>   (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement:
>       return 1.
> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
>   {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
>   }
> 
> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
> </Input to LLM systems>
> 
> *Here are the best three*
> https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
> 
> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21- 
> eedd0f09e141
> 


Do something more meaningful with your life than discussing
the same detail for years. I find that absolutely insane.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122763

On 9/25/2025 9:21 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 25.09.2025 um 15:56 schrieb olcott:
>> Does there exist a single halt decider that can
>> compute the mapping from its finite string input(s)
>> to an accept or reject value on the basis of the
>> semantic halting property specified by this/these
>> finite string input(s) for all inputs?
>>
>> *Defines a different result as shown below*
>>
>>  From just my own two sentences (a) and (b) five LLM
>> systems figured out how to correctly decide the halting
>> problem's counter example input.
>>
>> They all figured out the recursive simulation non-halting
>> behavior pattern on their own.
>>
>> <Input to LLM systems>
>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>>   (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
>>       abort simulation and return 0.
>>   (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement:
>>       return 1.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>>   {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>>   }
>>
>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>> </Input to LLM systems>
>>
>> *Here are the best three*
>> https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
>>
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
>>
>> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21- 
>> eedd0f09e141
>>
> 
> 
> Do something more meaningful with your life than discussing
> the same detail for years. I find that absolutely insane.
> 

It is not the same detail this is something
brand new. I came up with it during my five
months of three different kinds of very extensive
cancer treatment that saved my life and got
rid of my cancer.

The semantic properties of finite strings is
the key aspect of the halting problem that no
one has ever properly addressed.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122764

On 25/09/2025 15:27, olcott wrote:

<snip>

> The semantic properties of finite strings is
> the key aspect of the halting problem that no
> one has ever properly addressed.

For the Halting Problem, the only semantic property you have to 
worry about is whether a program halts.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122765

On 9/25/2025 7:21 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 25.09.2025 um 15:56 schrieb olcott:
>> Does there exist a single halt decider that can
>> compute the mapping from its finite string input(s)
>> to an accept or reject value on the basis of the
>> semantic halting property specified by this/these
>> finite string input(s) for all inputs?
>>
>> *Defines a different result as shown below*
>>
>>  From just my own two sentences (a) and (b) five LLM
>> systems figured out how to correctly decide the halting
>> problem's counter example input.
>>
>> They all figured out the recursive simulation non-halting
>> behavior pattern on their own.
>>
>> <Input to LLM systems>
>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>>   (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
>>       abort simulation and return 0.
>>   (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement:
>>       return 1.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>>   {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>>   }
>>
>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>> </Input to LLM systems>
>>
>> *Here are the best three*
>> https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
>>
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
>>
>> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21- 
>> eedd0f09e141
>>
> 
> 
> Do something more meaningful with your life than discussing
> the same detail for years. I find that absolutely insane.
> 

I hope he listens to you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122766

On 26/09/2025 19:10, olcott wrote:
> On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 26/09/2025 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.
>>>>
>>>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a 
>>>> convincing argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp 
>>>> Sci PhDs who've studied the Halting Problem (for the 10 
>>>> minutes it takes to drink a cup of coffee while they run the 
>>>> proof through their minds) and who have no problem with it 
>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say
>>> without looking at a single word because majority
>>> consensus have never been shown to be less than
>>> totally infallible.
>>
>> That isn't what I said. I said that for every PhD you can 
>> appeal to who doesn't understand the proof, there will be 
>> thousands who do understand the proof.
>>
> 
> By showing that two PhD computer scientists agree
> with my position makes it unreasonably implausible
> that I am a mere crackpot.

No, what makes it reasonably plausible that you're a crackpot is 
that you've spent twenty years trying to answer a question you 
believe to be incorrect, meaningless, and nonsensical, and you 
make asinine arguments here with every indication of actually 
believing them. You make grand claims for yourself but don't back 
them up with intelligent discussion of the points made agaibst 
you, and you sneer at what you perceive as the dishonesty and 
incompetence of your correspondents. You've got crank written 
through you like a stick of Brighton Rock.

>>> The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice 
>>> between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do 
>>> so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
>>
>> We don't even have to do that, because there is no need to 
>> change our minds and the proof is already written.
>>
> 
> In other words because you are sure that I must
> be wrong there is no need to pay close attention
> to what I say.

Close attention must be earned. You might get it out of sheer 
curiosity to start with, but when you write an endless stream of 
drivel you quickly lose it, and it's hard to regain.

> *The halting problem proof question is this*

No, it isn't.

The halting problem proof question is this: can a universal 
halting decider exist?

The halting problem proof answer is this: no.

<more drivel snipped>

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122776

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 26/09/2025 19:10, olcott wrote:
[SNIP]

Please watch the crossposts.  (No need to reply to this.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122767

On 9/26/2025 5:15 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2025 3:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> *The conventional halting problem question is this*
>>>> Does there exist a single halt decider that
>>>> can correctly report the halt status of the
>>>> behavior of a directly executed machine on
>>>> the basis of this machine's machine description.
>>>>
>>>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*
>>>> What correct halt status value can be returned
>>>> when the input to a halt decider actually does
>>>> the opposite of whatever value is returned?
>>>>
>>>> These above conventional views are proven.
>>>
>>> Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements.
>>> And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own
>>> formulations and then declare them to be conventional.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Any statement or question that is semantically
>> equivalent to another can be replaced by this
>> other expression of language while retaining
>> the same essential meaning.
> 
> Lofty words there, Aristotle!
> 
> Too bad HHH(DD) has a different meaning depending on where it is placed
> and who is evaluating it, plus whatever you need it to mean for whatever
> you are saying.
> 

*The conventional halting problem proof question is this*
For a halt decider H what correct halt status can
be returned for an input D that does the opposite
of whatever value is returned?

This is the actual diagonal proof question making
it immediately obvious that correct answers are
logically impossible.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122768

On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.
> 
> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing 
> argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied 
> the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of 
> coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no 
> problem with it whatsoever.
> 

And of course you can dismiss whatever they say
without looking at a single word because majority
consensus have never been shown to be less than
totally infallible.


The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between 
changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost 
everyone gets busy with the proof.”

Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be 
explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of 
them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most 
intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without 
a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would 
someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do 
such behaviors serve us?

https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122770

On 9/26/2025 3:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:
> 
>> *The conventional halting problem question is this*
>> Does there exist a single halt decider that
>> can correctly report the halt status of the
>> behavior of a directly executed machine on
>> the basis of this machine's machine description.
>>
>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*
>> What correct halt status value can be returned
>> when the input to a halt decider actually does
>> the opposite of whatever value is returned?
>>
>> These above conventional views are proven.
> 
> Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements. 
> And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own 
> formulations and then declare them to be conventional.
> 
> André
> 

Any statement or question that is semantically
equivalent to another can be replaced by this
other expression of language while retaining
the same essential meaning.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122780

On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/2025 3:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:
>> 
>>> *The conventional halting problem question is this*
>>> Does there exist a single halt decider that
>>> can correctly report the halt status of the
>>> behavior of a directly executed machine on
>>> the basis of this machine's machine description.
>>>
>>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*
>>> What correct halt status value can be returned
>>> when the input to a halt decider actually does
>>> the opposite of whatever value is returned?
>>>
>>> These above conventional views are proven.
>> 
>> Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements. 
>> And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own 
>> formulations and then declare them to be conventional.
>> 
>> André
>> 
>
> Any statement or question that is semantically
> equivalent to another can be replaced by this
> other expression of language while retaining
> the same essential meaning.

Lofty words there, Aristotle!

Too bad HHH(DD) has a different meaning depending on where it is placed
and who is evaluating it, plus whatever you need it to mean for whatever
you are saying.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122772

On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.
>> 
>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing 
>> argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied 
>> the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of 
>> coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no 
>> problem with it whatsoever.
>> 
>
> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say
> without looking at a single word because majority
> consensus have never been shown to be less than
> totally infallible.

Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible.

Mathematicians are a very careful bunch; they generally know when they
have a conjecture and when they have a proved theorem.

Some of their proofs go for hundreds of pages. Peer reviews of such
proofs are able to find flaws.

You are not going to find a flaw in a massively accepted, old result
that, in in most succinct presentations, takes about a page. 

You might as well look for a dry spot on a T-shirt that was loaded
with rocks and is sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

> The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between 
> changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost 
> everyone gets busy with the proof.”

That's a thought-terminating cliche, just like, oh, the idea that the
more someone protests an accusation, the more guilty he must be.
As if someone innocent would not protest?

Are you saying that the concensus is /never/ right? Everyone
who-so-ever has a contrary opinion to a mathematical consensus is right?
Merely the possession of a contrary opinion is evidence of having
outwitted everyone?

> What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would 

You've not presented any facts, see. And your approach to a problem
in logic is to try to redefine it in some handwavy "extralogical" way
and then simply insist that anyone having to do with the original
problem should drop that and make the replacement one their agenda.

You are not able to earnestly engage with the subject matter in its
proper form.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122774

On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:

> *The conventional halting problem question is this*
> Does there exist a single halt decider that
> can correctly report the halt status of the
> behavior of a directly executed machine on
> the basis of this machine's machine description.
> 
> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*
> What correct halt status value can be returned
> when the input to a halt decider actually does
> the opposite of whatever value is returned?
> 
> These above conventional views are proven.

Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements. 
And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own 
formulations and then declare them to be conventional.

André

-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail 
service.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122775

On 9/26/2025 3:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing
>>>>> argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied
>>>>> the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of
>>>>> coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no
>>>>> problem with it whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say
>>>> without looking at a single word because majority
>>>> consensus have never been shown to be less than
>>>> totally infallible.
>>>
>>> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible.
>>>
>>
>> That is like pretty much sterile.
> 
> Sometime things are sterile and that is good.  Like your surgeon's
> gloves, or the interior of your next can of beans, and such.
> 

Pretty much infallible is like pretty much the
one and only creator of the Heavens and Earth.

>> Generally very reliable seems apt.
> 
> You don't even know the beginning of it.
> 

That I start from a philosophical foundation
different than the rules that you learned
by rote does not mean that I am incorrect.

>> Math and logic people will hold to views that
>> are philosophically primarily because they view
>> knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible.
> 
> Formal systems are artificial inventions evolving from their axioms.
> While we can't say that we know everything about a system just
> because we invented its axioms, we know when we have captured an
> air-tight truth.
> 

That is sometimes not airtight at all.

> It is not a situation in which we are relying on hypotheses,
> observations and measurements, which are saddled with conditions.
> 

Computer science guys do not tend exhaustively to check every
detail about every nuance of everything that they were taught
over and over looking for the tiniest inconsistency.

Philosophers of computer science do this.

> You're not going to end up with a classical mechanics theory
> of Turing Machine halting, distinct from a quantum and relativistic one,
> in which they can't decide between loops and strings ...
> 
> The subject matter admits iron-clad conclusions that get permanently
> laid to rest.
> 
>> The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain
>> semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions.
>> That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
> 
> The POE is utterly sane.
> 

That is just your indoctrination talking.
Try the same thing ion relevance logic.

> What is nutty is doing what it describe; go around assuming falsehoods
> to be true and the deriving nonsense from them with the intent of
> adopting a belief in all those falsehoods and the nonsense that follows.
> 
> But that, ironically, perfectly describes your own research programme,
> right down to the acronym:
> 
> Principle of Explosion -> POE -> Peter Olcott Experiment
> 
> A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system.  It
> is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no
> sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion.
> 

Like dog shit in a birthday cake.

> I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know
> in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show".
> If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit,
> all bets are off.
> 
> Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
> Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things
> you dan then prove are garbage out.
> 

Far far better to not let garbage in.

> The /reduction ad absurdum/ technique usefully makes a controlled use of
> a contradiction.  We introduce a contradiction and then derive from it
> some other contradictions using the same logical tools that we normally
> use for deriving truths from truths. We do that with the specific goal
> of arriving at a proposion that we otherwise already know to be false.
> At that point we drop regarding as true the entire chain, all the way
> back to the initial wrong assumption.
> 
> The benefit is that the contradiction being initially assumed is not
> /obviously/ a contradiction, but when we show that it derivews an
> /obvious/ contradiction, we readily see that it is so.
> 
> (Note that the diagonal halting proofs do not rely on /reduction ad
> absurdum/ whatsoever. They directly show that no decider can be total,
> without assuming anything about it.)
> 

*The conventional halting problem proof question is this*
For a halt decider H what correct halt status can
be returned for an input D that does the opposite
of whatever value is returned?


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122784

On 9/26/2025 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
[...]
> Far far better to not let garbage in.

Pot Kettle?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122778

On 26/09/2025 22:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 
> I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know
> in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show".
> If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit,
> all bets are off.
> 
> Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
> Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things
> you dan then prove are garbage out.
> 

Or to get vaguely topical to c.l.c and c.l.c++ - it also means that if 
your program "executes" undefined behaviour, all bets are off for the 
behaviour of your entire program.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122781

On 9/26/2025 3:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing
>>>>> argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied
>>>>> the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of
>>>>> coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no
>>>>> problem with it whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say
>>>> without looking at a single word because majority
>>>> consensus have never been shown to be less than
>>>> totally infallible.
>>>
>>> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible.
>>>
>>
>> That is like pretty much sterile.
> 
> Sometime things are sterile and that is good.  Like your surgeon's
> gloves, or the interior of your next can of beans, and such.
> 
>> Generally very reliable seems apt.
> 
> You don't even know the beginning of it.
> 
>> Math and logic people will hold to views that
>> are philosophically primarily because they view
>> knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible.
> 
> Formal systems are artificial inventions evolving from their axioms.
> While we can't say that we know everything about a system just
> because we invented its axioms, we know when we have captured an
> air-tight truth.
> 
> It is not a situation in which we are relying on hypotheses,
> observations and measurements, which are saddled with conditions.
> 
> You're not going to end up with a classical mechanics theory
> of Turing Machine halting, distinct from a quantum and relativistic one,
> in which they can't decide between loops and strings ...
> 
> The subject matter admits iron-clad conclusions that get permanently
> laid to rest.
> 
>> The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain
>> semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions.
>> That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
> 
> The POE is utterly sane.
> 
> What is nutty is doing what it describe; go around assuming falsehoods
> to be true and the deriving nonsense from them with the intent of
> adopting a belief in all those falsehoods and the nonsense that follows.
> 
> But that, ironically, perfectly describes your own research programme,
> right down to the acronym:
> 
> Principle of Explosion -> POE -> Peter Olcott Experiment
> 
> A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system.  It
> is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no
> sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion.
> 
> I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know
> in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show".
> If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit,
> all bets are off.
> 
> Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
> Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things
> you dan then prove are garbage out.
> 

That is exactly my point, otherwise
The Moon is made of Green cheese and
The Moon is NOT made of Green cheese
PROVES that Donald Trump is the Christ.

We can fix the POE by giving contradictions have
the semantic value of ⊥ and the rule-of-inference
that nothing follows from falsum.


> The /reduction ad absurdum/ technique usefully makes a controlled use of
> a contradiction.  We introduce a contradiction and then derive from it
> some other contradictions using the same logical tools that we normally
> use for deriving truths from truths. We do that with the specific goal
> of arriving at a proposion that we otherwise already know to be false.
> At that point we drop regarding as true the entire chain, all the way
> back to the initial wrong assumption.
> 
> The benefit is that the contradiction being initially assumed is not
> /obviously/ a contradiction, but when we show that it derivews an
> /obvious/ contradiction, we readily see that it is so.
> 
> (Note that the diagonal halting proofs do not rely on /reduction ad
> absurdum/ whatsoever. They directly show that no decider can be total,
> without assuming anything about it.)
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122783

On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.
>>>>
>>>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing
>>>> argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied
>>>> the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of
>>>> coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no
>>>> problem with it whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say
>>> without looking at a single word because majority
>>> consensus have never been shown to be less than
>>> totally infallible.
>> 
>> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible.
>> 
>
> That is like pretty much sterile.

Sometime things are sterile and that is good.  Like your surgeon's
gloves, or the interior of your next can of beans, and such.

> Generally very reliable seems apt.

You don't even know the beginning of it.

> Math and logic people will hold to views that
> are philosophically primarily because they view
> knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible.

Formal systems are artificial inventions evolving from their axioms.
While we can't say that we know everything about a system just
because we invented its axioms, we know when we have captured an
air-tight truth.

It is not a situation in which we are relying on hypotheses,
observations and measurements, which are saddled with conditions.

You're not going to end up with a classical mechanics theory
of Turing Machine halting, distinct from a quantum and relativistic one,
in which they can't decide between loops and strings ...

The subject matter admits iron-clad conclusions that get permanently
laid to rest.

> The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain
> semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions.
> That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

The POE is utterly sane.

What is nutty is doing what it describe; go around assuming falsehoods
to be true and the deriving nonsense from them with the intent of
adopting a belief in all those falsehoods and the nonsense that follows.

But that, ironically, perfectly describes your own research programme,
right down to the acronym:

Principle of Explosion -> POE -> Peter Olcott Experiment

A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system.  It
is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no
sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion.

I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know
in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show".
If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit,
all bets are off.

Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things
you dan then prove are garbage out.

The /reduction ad absurdum/ technique usefully makes a controlled use of
a contradiction.  We introduce a contradiction and then derive from it
some other contradictions using the same logical tools that we normally
use for deriving truths from truths. We do that with the specific goal
of arriving at a proposion that we otherwise already know to be false.
At that point we drop regarding as true the entire chain, all the way
back to the initial wrong assumption.

The benefit is that the contradiction being initially assumed is not
/obviously/ a contradiction, but when we show that it derivews an
/obvious/ contradiction, we readily see that it is so.

(Note that the diagonal halting proofs do not rely on /reduction ad
absurdum/ whatsoever. They directly show that no decider can be total,
without assuming anything about it.)

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122788

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

> A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system.  It
> is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no
> sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion.

As an aside, the field of paraconsistent logic, which excludes the PoE,
tries to study and develop 'inconsistency-tolerant' formal systems:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

> The entailment relations of paraconsistent logics are propositionally
> weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional
> inferences valid. The point is that a paraconsistent logic can never
> be a propositional extension of classical logic, that is,
> propositionally validate every entailment that classical logic
> does. In some sense, then, paraconsistent logic is more conservative
> or cautious than classical logic. It is due to such conservativeness
> that paraconsistent languages can be more expressive than their
> classical counterparts including the hierarchy of metalanguages due to
> Alfred Tarski and others.


Alexis.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122785

On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.
>>>
>>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing
>>> argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied
>>> the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of
>>> coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no
>>> problem with it whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say
>> without looking at a single word because majority
>> consensus have never been shown to be less than
>> totally infallible.
> 
> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible.
> 

That is like pretty much sterile.
Generally very reliable seems apt.

Math and logic people will hold to views that
are philosophically primarily because they view
knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible.

> Mathematicians are a very careful bunch; they generally know when they
> have a conjecture and when they have a proved theorem.
> 

Probably much more than other fields.

> Some of their proofs go for hundreds of pages. Peer reviews of such
> proofs are able to find flaws.
> 
> You are not going to find a flaw in a massively accepted, old result
> that, in in most succinct presentations, takes about a page.
> 

*The conventional halting problem question is this*
Does there exist a single halt decider that
can correctly report the halt status of the
behavior of a directly executed machine on
the basis of this machine's machine description.

*The conventional halting problem proof question is this*
What correct halt status value can be returned
when the input to a halt decider actually does
the opposite of whatever value is returned?

These above conventional views are proven.

To see that they are philosophically unsound:
On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
[The halting problem proof question is incorrect]

> You might as well look for a dry spot on a T-shirt that was loaded
> with rocks and is sitting at the bottom of the ocean.
> 
>> The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between
>> changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost
>> everyone gets busy with the proof.”
> 
> That's a thought-terminating cliche, just like, oh, the idea that the
> more someone protests an accusation, the more guilty he must be.
> As if someone innocent would not protest?
> 

That is however a very apt characterization of human nature.

> Are you saying that the concensus is /never/ right? Everyone
> who-so-ever has a contrary opinion to a mathematical consensus is right?
> Merely the possession of a contrary opinion is evidence of having
> outwitted everyone?
> 

Within math, logic and computer science one can know
the truth entirely on the basis of the meaning of
expressions of language on the basis of semantic
logical entailment.

The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain
semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions.
That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

>> What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would
> 
> You've not presented any facts, see. 

I have presented expressions that are verified much
more strongly then mere facts. They are proven completely
true entirely on the basis of their meaning. That no one
want to bother to understand the meaning of these
expressions is the dishonest aspect of their dishonest
dialogue.

> And your approach to a problem
> in logic is to try to redefine it in some handwavy "extralogical" way
> and then simply insist that anyone having to do with the original
> problem should drop that and make the replacement one their agenda.
> 
> You are not able to earnestly engage with the subject matter in its
> proper form.
> 

See this post to get a more accurate view of this:
On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
[The halting problem proof question is incorrect]

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web