Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 449 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:31 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:11 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 14:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:25 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 19:49 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-13 08:54 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:21 -0800
How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0100
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-11-13 12:14 +0000
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:06 -0800
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:28 -0600
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:22 -0600
Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:36 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:49 +0100
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:26 -0600
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 20:59 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 20:49 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:06 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 15:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 10:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 14:56 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:33 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 15:52 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:03 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 09:05 -0800
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 17:52 +0000
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 11:45 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:58 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-15 11:59 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 08:49 +0000
"true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:08 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 13:21 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:46 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:00 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:29 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:23 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:38 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:34 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 13:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:23 +0000
eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 20:34 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 14:45 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:24 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:30 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:20 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:03 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:35 -0600
polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:06 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:46 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:17 +0000
help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:43 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:48 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 11:19 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:47 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox --- TXR and AWK olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:49 -0600
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 21:01 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:18 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 13:03 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:45 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:07 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:41 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:37 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 15:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:41 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:12 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:42 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:57 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:22 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:56 -0800
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 17:24 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:27 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 02:42 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:23 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:41 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 05:04 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:19 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 17:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 12:15 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 18:22 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 19:18 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 23:14 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-22 05:39 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:00 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:26 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:44 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 20:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 14:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:09 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-23 04:20 +0000
Glossary of names in my termination analyzer system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 22:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 22:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 21:56 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 02:54 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:42 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:36 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- is libel against him olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:00 -0600
polcott agrees that the halting problem is incorrect in this way olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:47 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-18 23:47 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 00:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 00:57 +0000
polcott has shwn that the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:17 -0600
Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:24 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:06 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:07 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:41 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:49 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:18 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:40 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:44 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 01:56 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 20:19 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:25 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 22:05 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:43 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:03 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:26 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 19:42 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- quit lying about what I say olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:45 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000
homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 20:53 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-20 21:09 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:06 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:50 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:28 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:33 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:49 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:39 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 23:21 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 23:36 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:43 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:06 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:24 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0600
the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:22 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:48 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:36 +0000
the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:50 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:02 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 13:04 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-19 23:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-19 17:53 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:11 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:05 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:15 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:15 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 23:38 -0800
Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-22 03:02 +0000
halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:48 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:05 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:13 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 20:14 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:25 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:46 +0000
"great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 02:24 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 14:41 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:39 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 10:59 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:17 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:50 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:15 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:54 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:05 +0000
The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 01:03 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:36 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:22 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 08:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 08:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 10:15 -0500
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 18:42 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:06 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:59 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:09 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:31 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:39 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:00 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:19 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:58 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:40 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 11:02 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:10 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:33 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:04 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:26 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:02 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:43 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:57 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:52 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:54 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 20:51 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:20 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:44 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:44 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:58 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:56 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:52 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 16:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:24 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 05:28 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:44 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 19:37 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 09:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:03 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 06:43 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:03 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:24 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:06 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 03:30 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:04 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:14 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:25 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 11:56 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:35 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:05 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:27 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:40 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:08 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:53 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 22:54 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 23:30 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 00:10 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 01:07 +0000
Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 01:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:13 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 03:41 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 10:55 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 11:11 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:44 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 11:26 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:02 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:13 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 10:08 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:27 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-13 04:50 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:16 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:05 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:01 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:30 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:27 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:56 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:09 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:20 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:20 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:25 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:40 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:21 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:03 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:31 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:01 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200
Page 3 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 23 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 10:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth |
| Message-ID | <10f7jt6$2uo3l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135579 |
On 11/14/2025 9:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2025 8:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform
>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.
>
>>> They've got better things to do with their time than continually refuting
>>> falsehoods which contradict proven basics.
>
>>>> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform
>>>> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this
>>>> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof.
>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C
>
>>> Then why are you posting on Usenet, where people aren't writing what you
>>> want them to write? Why not stick to these LLM sysems which do reply
>>> what you want them to reply?
>
>>> These are not meant as rhetorical questions.
>
>
>> I am defending against your libelous statements.
>
>> It is a very bad idea to reject a claim as false
>> when this forms a "reckless disregard of the truth"
>
> It is a good thing to defend mathematically proven truths against
> unfounded falsehoods from cranks. If anybody here is guilty of "reckless
> disregard of the truth", it is you.
>
>> When one of ordinary skill in the art of C programming
>> can see that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach
>> its own "return" statement final halt statement and
>> this is denied, that forms libel when this denial is
>> in writing and slander when it is spoken.
>
> No one of ordinary skill in C programming has "seen" what you say that
> they should. Assuming your referents are what I think they are, it is
> clear that such an H can indeed simulate D to its return. Kaz and Mike
> have actually constructed C code where this happens. That you chose not
> to accept this is "reckless disregard of the truth".
>
int H(char* P);
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
H(D);
}
One of ordinary skill of the art of C programming
will and has correctly determined that D simulated
by H according to the semantics of the C programming
language cannot possibly reach its own simulated
"return" statement.
Not halting behavior pattern working code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
shown on line 996
Not halting behavior pattern axiom
Calls the same function from the same machine address
with no conditional branches in between its invocation
and this function call.
if (current->Simplified_Opcode == CALL)
// CALL
if (current->Simplified_Opcode == traced->Simplified_Opcode)
// from same address
if (current->Address == traced->Address)
// to Same Function
if (current->Decode_Target == traced->Decode_Target)
// no escape
if (Count_Conditional_Branch_Instructions == 0)
{
OutputString((char*)"Local Halt Decider: "
"Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped\n\n");
return 1;
}
The succinct agreement of one four LLM systems that agree
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C
> Yet again, you have dodged the question in my previous post, namely: Why
> are you posting on Usenet, where people don't say what you want, rather
> than on LLM systems, where the sytems do say what you want?
>
Correcting Libelous statements that meet the burden of
proof of reckless disregard of the truth
>> --
>> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
--
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]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 09:05 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth |
| Message-ID | <10f7ngl$2v8hd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135579 |
On 11/14/25 7:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/14/2025 8:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. > >>> They've got better things to do with their time than continually refuting >>> falsehoods which contradict proven basics. > >>>> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform >>>> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this >>>> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof. > >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C > >>> Then why are you posting on Usenet, where people aren't writing what you >>> want them to write? Why not stick to these LLM sysems which do reply >>> what you want them to reply? > >>> These are not meant as rhetorical questions. > > >> I am defending against your libelous statements. > >> It is a very bad idea to reject a claim as false >> when this forms a "reckless disregard of the truth" > > It is a good thing to defend mathematically proven truths against > unfounded falsehoods from cranks. If anybody here is guilty of "reckless > disregard of the truth", it is you. > >> When one of ordinary skill in the art of C programming >> can see that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach >> its own "return" statement final halt statement and >> this is denied, that forms libel when this denial is >> in writing and slander when it is spoken. > > No one of ordinary skill in C programming has "seen" what you say that i have, to a degree at least, but i'm just another crank for you to ignore, right??? > they should. Assuming your referents are what I think they are, it is > clear that such an H can indeed simulate D to its return. Kaz and Mike > have actually constructed C code where this happens. That you chose not > to accept this is "reckless disregard of the truth". > > Yet again, you have dodged the question in my previous post, namely: Why > are you posting on Usenet, where people don't say what you want, rather > than on LLM systems, where the sytems do say what you want? > >> -- >> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 17:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth |
| Message-ID | <10f7q96$2l3d$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135582 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > On 11/14/25 7:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] >>> It is a very bad idea to reject a claim as false >>> when this forms a "reckless disregard of the truth" >> It is a good thing to defend mathematically proven truths against >> unfounded falsehoods from cranks. If anybody here is guilty of "reckless >> disregard of the truth", it is you. >>> When one of ordinary skill in the art of C programming >>> can see that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach >>> its own "return" statement final halt statement and >>> this is denied, that forms libel when this denial is >>> in writing and slander when it is spoken. >> No one of ordinary skill in C programming has "seen" what you say that > i have, to a degree at least, but i'm just another crank for you to > ignore, right??? "To a degree" doesn't match Olcott's "... can see that ... cannot possibly ...". "Cannot possibly" is very strong language, and it contradicts the programs that Kaz and Mike have actually constructed and run. In these programs, each invocation of H reaches D's return, and halts, providing its simulation isn't prematurely broken off. I don't think you're a crank. You're not asserting mathematical falsehoods, you're not calling other people nasty names, and I think you're willing to admit your knowledge of the subject is incomplete. Those characteristics are not typical of cranks. [ .... ] > -- > a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve > basic semantic proofs like halting analysis > please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, > ~ nick -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 12:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth |
| Message-ID | <10f7rmb$3115a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135584 |
On 11/14/2025 11:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/14/25 7:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>>>> It is a very bad idea to reject a claim as false
>>>> when this forms a "reckless disregard of the truth"
>
>>> It is a good thing to defend mathematically proven truths against
>>> unfounded falsehoods from cranks. If anybody here is guilty of "reckless
>>> disregard of the truth", it is you.
>
>>>> When one of ordinary skill in the art of C programming
>>>> can see that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own "return" statement final halt statement and
>>>> this is denied, that forms libel when this denial is
>>>> in writing and slander when it is spoken.
>
>>> No one of ordinary skill in C programming has "seen" what you say that
>
>> i have, to a degree at least, but i'm just another crank for you to
>> ignore, right???
>
> "To a degree" doesn't match Olcott's "... can see that ... cannot
> possibly ...". "Cannot possibly" is very strong language, and it
> contradicts the programs that Kaz and Mike have actually constructed and
> run. In these programs, each invocation of H reaches D's return, and
> halts, providing its simulation isn't prematurely broken off.
>
> I don't think you're a crank. You're not asserting mathematical
> falsehoods, you're not calling other people nasty names, and I think
> you're willing to admit your knowledge of the subject is incomplete.
> Those characteristics are not typical of cranks.
>
> [ .... ]
On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Assuming that HHH(DDD) "correctly simulates" DDD, and assuming it
> does nothing else, your code would be equivalent to this:
>
> void DDD(void) {
> DDD();
> return;
> }
>
> Then the return statement (which is unnecessary anyway) will never be
> reached. In practice, the program will likely crash due to a stack
> overflow, unless the compiler implements tail-call optimization, in
> which case the program might just run forever -- which also means the
> unnecessary return statement will never be reached.
>
news://text.giganews.com/87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com
>
>> --
>> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
>> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
>
>> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
>
>> ~ nick
>
--
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]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 12:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth |
| Message-ID | <10f858c$33cpj$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135584 |
On 11/14/25 9:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/14/25 7:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>> It is a very bad idea to reject a claim as false >>>> when this forms a "reckless disregard of the truth" > >>> It is a good thing to defend mathematically proven truths against >>> unfounded falsehoods from cranks. If anybody here is guilty of "reckless >>> disregard of the truth", it is you. > >>>> When one of ordinary skill in the art of C programming >>>> can see that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach >>>> its own "return" statement final halt statement and >>>> this is denied, that forms libel when this denial is >>>> in writing and slander when it is spoken. > >>> No one of ordinary skill in C programming has "seen" what you say that > >> i have, to a degree at least, but i'm just another crank for you to >> ignore, right??? > > "To a degree" doesn't match Olcott's "... can see that ... cannot > possibly ...". "Cannot possibly" is very strong language, and it > contradicts the programs that Kaz and Mike have actually constructed and > run. In these programs, each invocation of H reaches D's return, and > halts, providing its simulation isn't prematurely broken off. > > I don't think you're a crank. You're not asserting mathematical > falsehoods, you're not calling other people nasty names, and I think > you're willing to admit your knowledge of the subject is incomplete. > Those characteristics are not typical of cranks. > > [ .... ] > >> -- >> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve >> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis > >> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, > >> ~ nick > would be nice if the dudes responding to polcott would give me more attention instead -- hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 11:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10f80sr$3298j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135571 |
On 11/14/2025 6:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. > > They've got better things to do with their time than continually refuting > falsehoods which contradict proven basics. > >> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform >> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this >> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof. > >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C > > Then why are you posting on Usenet, where people aren't writing what you > want them to write? Why not stick to these LLM sysems which do reply > what you want them to reply? Good question! > > These are not meant as rhetorical questions. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 20:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251114115819.137@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135571 |
On 2025-11-14, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. > > They've got better things to do with their time than continually refuting > falsehoods which contradict proven basics. > >> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform >> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this >> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof. > >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C > > Then why are you posting on Usenet, where people aren't writing what you > want them to write? Why not stick to these LLM sysems which do reply > what you want them to reply? Because he knows they are bullshit that is programmed to agreew with the user if the user persists in fighting through pushback. The early versions of GPT-4 integrated into Microsoft Edge were better! That was programmed to detect argumentative cranks and end the conversation. If was an essential feature that should continue to be implemented in new LLM chat agents, in spite of more generous token limits. Even in paid service, for that matter. If the user is persisting thorugh more than three or four rounds of factual pushback, "This conversation is not productive; perhaps I can help you with something else" and that's it. Cranks like Olcott would get squat all agreement out of that. Chat AI that talks endlessly and lets itself be overwhelmed is a public disservice. It's not as egregious as supporting someone in planning to harm oneself or others, but it's in the same vein. Agreeing with someone's bullshit after forty rounds is a palpable perpetration of social harm. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f83gl$339tb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135609 |
On 11/14/2025 2:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-14, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >> >> They've got better things to do with their time than continually refuting >> falsehoods which contradict proven basics. >> >>> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform >>> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this >>> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof. >> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C >> >> Then why are you posting on Usenet, where people aren't writing what you >> want them to write? Why not stick to these LLM sysems which do reply >> what you want them to reply? > > Because he knows they are bullshit that is programmed to agreew with > the user if the user persists in fighting through pushback. > Once an LLM proves that I am correct and that everyone else doesn't have a clue I need to make my words clear enough so that they can be understood by human reviewers. I won't directly get credibility from LLMs until everyone trusts them. Because of LLMs I can test and retest my words to find the most succinct combination that completely proves my point. People here would much rather assume that they are already correct than to bother verifying anything. > The early versions of GPT-4 integrated into Microsoft Edge were > better! That was programmed to detect argumentative cranks and > end the conversation. > Current LLMs can follow reasoning and anchor this reasoning to well known facts proving that this reasoning is sound. > If was an essential feature that should continue to be implemented > in new LLM chat agents, in spite of more generous token limits. > > Even in paid service, for that matter. > > If the user is persisting thorugh more than three or four rounds > of factual pushback, "This conversation is not productive; perhaps > I can help you with something else" and that's it. > Except that every push-back is addressed with an increasingly deeper understanding of my view that it eventually agrees with. There was a lot of push-back in the dialogue: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397442168_How_pathological_self-reference_is_confused_with_undecidability If you weren't so damned sure that I must be wrong you could see that. > Cranks like Olcott would get squat all agreement out of that. > > Chat AI that talks endlessly and lets itself be overwhelmed > is a public disservice. It's not as egregious as supporting someone > in planning to harm oneself or others, but it's in the same vein. > Agreeing with someone's bullshit after forty rounds is a palpable > perpetration of social harm. > -- 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]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f849p$106$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135614 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] > People here would much rather assume that they are already > correct than to bother verifying anything. People here verified the proofs of things like the Halting Theorem years ago, if not decades ago. That verification remains eternally valid. [ .... ] > If you weren't so damned sure that I must be wrong > you could see that. I'm not damned sure you're wrong; I know it for an absolutely proven fact. Having verified a mathematical proof of a theorem, there is no need to even look at your arguments disagreeing with it. People do, though. See above. [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 14:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f8553$33ncs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135616 |
On 11/14/2025 2:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >> People here would much rather assume that they are already >> correct than to bother verifying anything. > > People here verified the proofs of things like the Halting Theorem years > ago, if not decades ago. That verification remains eternally valid. > Until someone bothers to notice that the foundations of this proof are incorrect. Within the incorrect foundations the proof is correct. > [ .... ] > >> If you weren't so damned sure that I must be wrong >> you could see that. > > I'm not damned sure you're wrong; I know it for an absolutely proven > fact. Within the incorrect foundations I am wrong. Philosopher's of computation do not take these foundations as given. > Having verified a mathematical proof of a theorem, there is no > need to even look at your arguments disagreeing with it. People do, > though. See above. > Because they assume that all the assumptions are infallibly correct even when they are not. The proof is correct within its assumptions. Within its assumptions the halting problem instance decider/input pair were the input does the opposite of whatever its decider reports is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise. I noticed this over 20 years ago. My posts are still out there. Also after 2000 years there is no accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox. *Apparently my resolution is brand new* ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. I had to create Minimal Type Theory https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF From scratch before I noticed this. The Liar Paradox has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence. LP := ~True(LP) 00 ~ 01 True 00 // cycle G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Directed Graph of evaluation sequence 00 ↔ 01 02 01 G 02 ¬ 03 03 Prov 04 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle > [ .... ] > >> -- >> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > -- 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]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 11:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f9pv2$eha$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135618 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/14/2025 2:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> [ .... ] >>> People here would much rather assume that they are already >>> correct than to bother verifying anything. >> People here verified the proofs of things like the Halting Theorem years >> ago, if not decades ago. That verification remains eternally valid. > Until someone bothers to notice that the foundations > of this proof are incorrect. Within the incorrect > foundations the proof is correct. This is another one of your falsehoods. The foundations, which you don't understand, are not incorrect. Very clever people have attempted to show inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less clever people don't have a chance of doing so. >> [ .... ] >>> If you weren't so damned sure that I must be wrong >>> you could see that. >> I'm not damned sure you're wrong; I know it for an absolutely proven >> fact. > Within the incorrect foundations I am wrong. You are wrong. > Philosophers of computation do not take these foundations as given. Is there such a thing as a "philosopher of computation"? If so, name one. I put it to you that philosophers do indeed accept mathematical foundations. If not, the burden of proof is in your court. If you reject mathematical foundations, you must also reject all things built upon it. That includes engineering and science, including the medical science you took advantage of recently. >> Having verified a mathematical proof of a theorem, there is no >> need to even look at your arguments disagreeing with it. People do, >> though. See above. > Because they assume that all the assumptions > are infallibly correct even when they are not. They are correct. It is a matter of common sense that they are correct. People, apart from yourself, accept things like 2 + 2 = 4. > The proof is correct within its assumptions. > Within its assumptions the halting problem > instance decider/input pair were the input > does the opposite of whatever its decider > reports is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise. > I noticed this over 20 years ago. My posts are > still out there. You are wrong there, and it has been explained to you hundreds of times exactly where you are wrong and why. > Also after 2000 years there is no accepted > resolution of the Liar Paradox. The liar paradox is a triviality, which doesn't take up any intelligent person's time and energy. > *Apparently my resolution is brand new* Highly unlikely. [ .... ] > I had to create Minimal Type Theory > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF > From scratch before I noticed this. What you have posted about your scheme here does not appear to be self consistent or useful. > The Liar Paradox has a cycle in the directed graph of > its evaluation sequence. How can you even talk about directed graphs when you reject the mathematical foundations which gave rise to them? [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 13:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f9vat$3gfn3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135656 |
On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Very clever people have attempted to show > inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less > clever people don't have a chance of doing so. That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/. That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in dead-usenet they can expect it to be true. Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a famous fallacy, one of the famous ones. We normally only use that to make little children behave how we want them too and we do it knowing that we must stop when they become proper people. We only continue to do it when we are unable to perceive that others could be proper people. >> Philosophers of computation do not take these foundations as given. > > Is there such a thing as a "philosopher of computation"? There used to be. > If so, name > one. Haskell Curry (deceased). > I put it to you that philosophers do indeed accept mathematical > foundations. If not, the burden of proof is in your court. The burden of proving to Olcott that Olcott is wrong is on whoever gives a shit. If your posts are to prove to me then I'm offended by them. I'll have you know I'm a proper person. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 08:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fc360$10ar$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135659 |
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Very clever people have attempted to show >> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less >> clever people don't have a chance of doing so. > That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open > the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to > themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/. <sigh> That's not the way the world works. Such results would have been published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny. Something like this did happen some years ago, I can't remember the exact details, but I think it was a "proof" that integer arithmetic was inconsistent. An even cleverer mathematician (I think it might have been Terence Tao) found flaws in the proof, and the paper was withdrawn. > That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that > they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in > dead-usenet they can expect it to be true. > Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a > famous fallacy, one of the famous ones. Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge. You don't call it "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to service your car or a doctor to service you. You're suggesting that mathematics is founded on something like religion, and that one is free to reject these foundations as one is free to reject a religion. Peter Olcott has done this and ended up with falsity and nonsense. > We normally only use that to make little children behave how we want > them too and we do it knowing that we must stop when they become > proper people. That's a very cynical view of education. You seem to be suggesting it would be better not to educate children, to avoid damaging them with "received doctrine". > We only continue to do it when we are unable to perceive that others > could be proper people. This seems to be getting preposterous. Do you not regard young children as "proper people"? I do. >>> Philosophers of computation do not take these foundations as given. >> Is there such a thing as a "philosopher of computation"? > There used to be. >> If so, name one. > Haskell Curry (deceased). Whom I've heard of. Where is the evidence that he questioned the foundations of mathematics? >> I put it to you that philosophers do indeed accept mathematical >> foundations. If not, the burden of proof is in your court. > The burden of proving to Olcott that Olcott is wrong is on whoever gives > a shit. If your posts are to prove to me then I'm offended by them. I'll > have you know I'm a proper person. The foundations of mathematics are just as valid for you as for anybody else, just as are the foundations of physics, or of engineering, or of medicine, or of many other fields. You should respect expertise in these fields, not disparage the experts as purveyors of "received doctrine". > -- > Tristan Wibberley -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600 |
| Subject | "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fcsgh$8gcd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135772 |
On 11/16/2025 2:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> Very clever people have attempted to show >>> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less >>> clever people don't have a chance of doing so. > >> That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open >> the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to >> themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/. > > <sigh> That's not the way the world works. Such results would have been > published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny. That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant tenured PhD computer science professor could have been fired merely because he brought up the idea that the halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > Something like this did happen some years ago, I can't remember the > exact details, but I think it was a "proof" that integer arithmetic was > inconsistent. An even cleverer mathematician (I think it might have > been Terence Tao) found flaws in the proof, and the paper was withdrawn. > >> That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that >> they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in >> dead-usenet they can expect it to be true. > >> Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a >> famous fallacy, one of the famous ones. > > Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge. You don't call it > "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to > service your car or a doctor to service you. > No one in any technical field: computer science, mathematics, and logic can tolerate challenges to the foundational assumptions of their field. Everything has been proven to work correctly within those foundational assumptions over many decades. Only Philosophers in those technical fields can have sufficient open mindedness to objectively consider alternatives to the foundational assumptions. Everyone else essentially construes this as blasphemy. > You're suggesting that mathematics is founded on something like > religion, and that one is free to reject these foundations as one is > free to reject a religion. Peter Olcott has done this and ended up with > falsity and nonsense. > It is the foundational assumptions that are taken to be the infallible word of God such that any and all challenges to these foundational assumptions are treated like blasphemy that tenured professors can get fired for. >> We normally only use that to make little children behave how we want >> them too and we do it knowing that we must stop when they become >> proper people. > > That's a very cynical view of education. You seem to be suggesting it > would be better not to educate children, to avoid damaging them with > "received doctrine". > >> We only continue to do it when we are unable to perceive that others >> could be proper people. > > This seems to be getting preposterous. Do you not regard young children > as "proper people"? I do. > >>>> Philosophers of computation do not take these foundations as given. > >>> Is there such a thing as a "philosopher of computation"? > >> There used to be. > >>> If so, name one. > >> Haskell Curry (deceased). > > Whom I've heard of. Where is the evidence that he questioned the > foundations of mathematics? > https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf When combined together refutes Gödel's first incompleteness theorem >>> I put it to you that philosophers do indeed accept mathematical >>> foundations. If not, the burden of proof is in your court. > >> The burden of proving to Olcott that Olcott is wrong is on whoever gives >> a shit. If your posts are to prove to me then I'm offended by them. I'll >> have you know I'm a proper person. > > The foundations of mathematics are just as valid for you as for anybody > else, just as are the foundations of physics, or of engineering, or of > medicine, or of many other fields. > > You should respect expertise in these fields, not disparage the experts > as purveyors of "received doctrine". > I have worked on this for 28 years because: If the halting problem is correct then the notion of "true on the basis of meaning" is broken. I first spoke of absolute truth until I found that people were confused and thought that absolute truth only came from God and they didn't believe in God. The I spoke of analytic truth until I found that Willard Van Orman Quine could not even understand that the notion that all bachelors are unmarried is a stipulated relation between the term bachelor and unmarried that defines the meaning of term bachelor relative to the existing term unmarried. Olcott's "true on the basis of meaning" My correction to the analytic / synthetic distinction is that analytic(Olcott) are expressions of language are proven completely true entirely on the basis of their relation to other expressions of language that give them their meaning. This only excludes expression of language that rely on sense data from the sense organs such as the actual smell of a rose. The entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language is essentially a semantic tautology. >> -- >> Tristan Wibberley > -- 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]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fdins$2hoq$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135786 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/16/2025 2:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Tristan Wibberley >> <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Very clever people have attempted to show >>>> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less >>>> clever people don't have a chance of doing so. >>> That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open >>> the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to >>> themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/. >> <sigh> That's not the way the world works. Such results would have been >> published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny. > That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant > tenured PhD computer science professor could have been > fired merely because he brought up the idea that the > halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look > at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he > challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. It they do, they are a danger to their students, and should be removed. It is common knowledge that Wolfgang Mückenheim, who teaches at Augsburg, asserts falsehoods on sci.math. It is generally agreed there he should be dismissed. If a geography academic were to promulgate the notion that the Earth was flat, he should likewise be fired. Those in authority that assert and teach falsehoods should not have such positions. Again we're not talking about "conventional wisdom", we're talking about firmly established knowledge. "Conventional wisdom" is much weaker than established knowledge, and it is often false. >> Something like this did happen some years ago, I can't remember the >> exact details, but I think it was a "proof" that integer arithmetic was >> inconsistent. An even cleverer mathematician (I think it might have >> been Terence Tao) found flaws in the proof, and the paper was withdrawn. >>> That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that >>> they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in >>> dead-usenet they can expect it to be true. >>> Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a >>> famous fallacy, one of the famous ones. >> Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge. You don't call it >> "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to >> service your car or a doctor to service you. > No one in any technical field: computer science, > mathematics, and logic can tolerate challenges to > the foundational assumptions of their field. No, mathematicians can't tolerate cranks telling them that 2 + 2 = 5, or an arbitrary angle can be trisected by ruler and compass, or that the halting theorem is wrong. Academics hate lies and falsehoods. By "challenges" you mean ignorant cranks disputing established knowledge. > Everything has been proven to work correctly within > those foundational assumptions over many decades. Indeed, yes. One such foundational assumption is that if you drop something it falls. Some people high on LSD decided that assumption was false and jumped out of windows with tragic results. > Only Philosophers in those technical fields can > have sufficient open mindedness to objectively > consider alternatives to the foundational assumptions. Wrong. Philosophers are insufficiently competent in the technical fields to be able to evaluate them effectively. Only technical experts are able to do this. The example you sometimes cite, of the new set theory ZFC, was not formulated by philosophers. > Everyone else essentially construes this as blasphemy. Not at all. I suspect more "everyone else"s construe such suggestions as yet more time wasting from cranks. >> You're suggesting that mathematics is founded on something like >> religion, and that one is free to reject these foundations as one is >> free to reject a religion. Peter Olcott has done this and ended up with >> falsity and nonsense. > It is the foundational assumptions that are taken to be > the infallible word of God such that any and all challenges > to these foundational assumptions are treated like blasphemy > that tenured professors can get fired for. I don't know what you mean by God, here. As I've said already, such challenges are typically from uneducated time wasting cranks. Tenured professors accept things like Pythagoras's Theorem, 2 + 2 = 4, and the Halting Theorem. They are all firmly established trivial results. [ .... ] >>> -- >>> Tristan Wibberley > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 20:08 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fe03m$ift4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135811 |
On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/16/2025 2:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Tristan Wibberley >>> <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>> Very clever people have attempted to show >>>>> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less >>>>> clever people don't have a chance of doing so. > >>>> That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open >>>> the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to >>>> themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/. > >>> <sigh> That's not the way the world works. Such results would have been >>> published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny. > >> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > > I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't > go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. It is not a falsehood. It is a truth that you utterly will not pay attention to because you are too damned sure of yourself. > It they do, they are > a danger to their students, and should be removed. It is common > knowledge that Wolfgang Mückenheim, who teaches at Augsburg, asserts > falsehoods on sci.math. It is generally agreed there he should be > dismissed. > People utterly refused to look for any errors in his reasoning. They assumed that he must be wrong entirely on the basis that he challenged conventional notions. He has many papers published in JACM. > If a geography academic were to promulgate the notion that the Earth was > flat, he should likewise be fired. Those in authority that assert and > teach falsehoods should not have such positions. > > Again we're not talking about "conventional wisdom", we're talking about > firmly established knowledge. "Conventional wisdom" is much weaker than > established knowledge, and it is often false. > >>> Something like this did happen some years ago, I can't remember the >>> exact details, but I think it was a "proof" that integer arithmetic was >>> inconsistent. An even cleverer mathematician (I think it might have >>> been Terence Tao) found flaws in the proof, and the paper was withdrawn. > >>>> That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that >>>> they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in >>>> dead-usenet they can expect it to be true. > >>>> Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a >>>> famous fallacy, one of the famous ones. > >>> Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge. You don't call it >>> "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to >>> service your car or a doctor to service you. > > >> No one in any technical field: computer science, >> mathematics, and logic can tolerate challenges to >> the foundational assumptions of their field. > > No, mathematicians can't tolerate cranks telling them that 2 + 2 = 5, or > an arbitrary angle can be trisected by ruler and compass, or that the > halting theorem is wrong. Academics hate lies and falsehoods. > > By "challenges" you mean ignorant cranks disputing established knowledge. > You probably don't even know what the term [foundational assumptions] means. I will give you a concrete example ZFC overturned the foundational assumptions of naive set theory. >> Everything has been proven to work correctly within >> those foundational assumptions over many decades. > > Indeed, yes. One such foundational assumption is that if you drop > something it falls. Some people high on LSD decided that assumption was > false and jumped out of windows with tragic results. > In other words you are saying that you are still dumb enough to accept the Russell's Paradox is sound? Is ZFC crack-pottery? >> Only Philosophers in those technical fields can >> have sufficient open mindedness to objectively >> consider alternatives to the foundational assumptions. > > Wrong. Philosophers are insufficiently competent in the technical fields > to be able to evaluate them effectively. Only technical experts are able > to do this. The example you sometimes cite, of the new set theory ZFC, > was not formulated by philosophers. > It is extremely rare that a single person will be sufficiently open minded and technically competent. I operated on the basis of the intuition that if the class of self-referential undecidable decision problem instance were sound then the notion of true on the basis of meaning expressed in language is itself broken. *KEY BASIS OF EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID FOR 28 YEARS* It turns out to actually be the case that true on the basis of meaning expressed in language is simply a semantic tautology expressed syntactically. You could probably figure out what that means on the basis of the meaning of the terms that comprise is. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ff7hn$1puu$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135822 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/16/2025 2:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Tristan Wibberley >>>> <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> Very clever people have attempted to show >>>>>> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less >>>>>> clever people don't have a chance of doing so. >>>>> That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open >>>>> the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to >>>>> themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/. >>>> <sigh> That's not the way the world works. Such results would have been >>>> published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny. >>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. > It is not a falsehood. I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for this reason. > It is a truth that you utterly will not pay attention to because you > are too damned sure of yourself. I think that by "it" you mean the halting theorem. Yes I'm sure of myself because this theorem has been unequivocably proven as well as being utterly trivial. >> If they do, they are a danger to their students, and should be >> removed. It is common knowledge that Wolfgang Mückenheim, who teaches >> at Augsburg, asserts falsehoods on sci.math. It is generally agreed >> there he should be dismissed. > People utterly refused to look for any errors in his > reasoning. They assumed that he must be wrong entirely > on the basis that he challenged conventional notions. People didn't have to look. His errors were damned obvious, and they were pointed out ad nauseam on sci.math, just as your errors have been pointed out ad nauseam here. Neither of you has paid the slightest attention to these notices of errors. You both just evade them, or ignore them, and carry on blasting falsehoods into a newsgroup. You are both cranks. > He has many papers published in JACM. Hopefully not about Set Theory. >> If a geography academic were to promulgate the notion that the Earth was >> flat, he should likewise be fired. Those in authority that assert and >> teach falsehoods should not have such positions. >> Again we're not talking about "conventional wisdom", we're talking about >> firmly established knowledge. "Conventional wisdom" is much weaker than >> established knowledge, and it is often false. >>>> Something like this did happen some years ago, I can't remember the >>>> exact details, but I think it was a "proof" that integer arithmetic was >>>> inconsistent. An even cleverer mathematician (I think it might have >>>> been Terence Tao) found flaws in the proof, and the paper was withdrawn. >>>>> That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that >>>>> they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in >>>>> dead-usenet they can expect it to be true. >>>>> Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a >>>>> famous fallacy, one of the famous ones. >>>> Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge. You don't call it >>>> "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to >>>> service your car or a doctor to service you. >>> No one in any technical field: computer science, >>> mathematics, and logic can tolerate challenges to >>> the foundational assumptions of their field. >> No, mathematicians can't tolerate cranks telling them that 2 + 2 = 5, or >> an arbitrary angle can be trisected by ruler and compass, or that the >> halting theorem is wrong. Academics hate lies and falsehoods. >> By "challenges" you mean ignorant cranks disputing established knowledge. > You probably don't even know what the term [foundational assumptions] > means. I assume it means what it says. > I will give you a concrete example ZFC overturned the foundational > assumptions of naive set theory. Did it really? Naive set theory is still widely used, though with awareness of its limitations. Much like Newtonian mechanics is still widely taught and used despite the development of Special Relativity. Both naive set theory (as it is now called) and Newtonian mechanics were found to have problems, and they were modified by highly educated very clever specialists. There is no such problem with the Halting Theorem. >>> Everything has been proven to work correctly within >>> those foundational assumptions over many decades. >> Indeed, yes. One such foundational assumption is that if you drop >> something it falls. Some people high on LSD decided that assumption was >> false and jumped out of windows with tragic results. > In other words you are saying that you are still > dumb enough to accept the Russell's Paradox is sound? > Is ZFC crack-pottery? Must you be so offensive? I am not saying anything like that at all. A paradox is not the sort of thing that is either sound or unsound. It simply is. ZFC is the currently accepted version of set theory, and unresolved problems with it haven't been found. >>> Only Philosophers in those technical fields can >>> have sufficient open mindedness to objectively >>> consider alternatives to the foundational assumptions. >> Wrong. Philosophers are insufficiently competent in the technical fields >> to be able to evaluate them effectively. Only technical experts are able >> to do this. The example you sometimes cite, of the new set theory ZFC, >> was not formulated by philosophers. > It is extremely rare that a single person will > be sufficiently open minded and technically competent. If that is the case, technically competent wins over "sufficiently open minded" (whatever that might mean) every time. You certainly wouldn't have accepted some new cancer treatment from somebody "sufficiently open minded" in preference to those provided by technically competent doctors. I seem to remember that a few years ago in the USA, "sufficiently open minded" people suggested bleach as a treatment for covid-19. > I operated on the basis of the intuition that if > the class of self-referential undecidable decision > problem instance were sound then the notion of > true on the basis of meaning expressed in language > is itself broken. That's just meaningless word salad. > *KEY BASIS OF EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID FOR 28 YEARS* > It turns out to actually be the case that true on > the basis of meaning expressed in language is > simply a semantic tautology expressed syntactically. > You could probably figure out what that means on the > basis of the meaning of the terms that comprise is. Many things are false on the basis of meaning. I don't see what you're trying to get at with these last two paragraphs. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 07:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ff90d$si6o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135851 |
On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/16/2025 2:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Tristan Wibberley >>>>> <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>>>> Very clever people have attempted to show >>>>>>> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success. Less >>>>>>> clever people don't have a chance of doing so. > >>>>>> That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open >>>>>> the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to >>>>>> themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/. > >>>>> <sigh> That's not the way the world works. Such results would have been >>>>> published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny. > >>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > >>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. > >> It is not a falsehood. > > I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for > this reason. > https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 17:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ffkb1$2u40$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135864 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] >>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >>> It is not a falsehood. >> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >> this reason. > https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other reply you made to my last post. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 11:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ffkj9$10cln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135871 |
On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > >>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. > >>>> It is not a falsehood. > >>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >>> this reason. > >> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf > > What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody > being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other > reply you made to my last post. > You have to read it all the way through. What strikes me most about these reviews is that they do not point out any error in my arguments and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, that I am making a claim that is contrary to the current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no need to read my arguments carefully. >> -- >> Copyright 2025 Olcott > >> My 28 year goal has been to make >> "true on the basis of meaning" computable. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web