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 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 19:02 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgnk7$16skb$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135946 |
On 11/17/25 6:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/17/25 3:33 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/25 2:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/25 1:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> It is insulting to call the hard work of mathematicians mere doctrine, >>>>>>> and to group them into a lump that is called some kind of orthodoxy. >>>>>> >>>>>> it kinda is on the verge of unquestionable orthodoxy given that someone >>>>>> akin to the status of eric cannot start a proper academic conversation on it >>>>> >>>>> He /did/ start the conversation; or else how did it end up here? >>>> >>>> that's why i qualified it with "proper" in like a real journal >>> >>> You are saying there are no proper academic conversations other than >>> publications in a journal (where references to earlier publications >>> serve as "replies" to them)? >> >> ok man ur right, i'm, wrong >> >> eric did start a proper conversation, i'm cool with that >> >>> >>> I say that if you submit something to a journal and get back a >>> review, you have started a conversation, and that conversation is >>> properly academic, even if the thing is ultimately rejected. >> >> idk man, i don't think the rejections where particularly considerate at >> all. far far far far far less than polcott has received here > > But, I mean, look at where the goalposts are when you reference what > polcott has received: detailed attention, from multiple people, to each > of his relativecly small number of claims claims ... for over 20 years > of Usenet posting. Go to Google Groups; you can find him posting in 2004 > and maybe earlier. > > A review process for a journal submission is not going to draw out over > twenty years, across multiple people changing posts. eric didn't really get any review processes lots of people told me to submit to journals, but we're at the point where someone like eric just gets summarily rejected ... i have literally no chance once my result becomes more accepted, i will have a lot to say about the modern academic processes are conducted > > The reviewers hold the upper hand: they have something that the > submitter wants, and can cut the process short. > > They are also not going to handle repetition: if they give you feedback > and you just dismiss the feedback and repeat essentially the same > submission, you are going to be dismissed as a basket case who doesn't > understand the review process. > > Let's not forget: in the first place, why is Olcott here and not on > Reddit or elsewhere? > > Moderation! > > One /week/ of posting all this repetitivec crap in a moderated forum, > and he's history. > i'm just glad there still one bastion of free speech left on this god forsaking internet -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 21:43 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgq0l$1ab77$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135951 |
On 11/17/2025 9:02 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 6:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 3:33 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/25 2:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/25 1:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> It is insulting to call the hard work of mathematicians mere >>>>>>>> doctrine, >>>>>>>> and to group them into a lump that is called some kind of >>>>>>>> orthodoxy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it kinda is on the verge of unquestionable orthodoxy given that >>>>>>> someone >>>>>>> akin to the status of eric cannot start a proper academic >>>>>>> conversation on it >>>>>> >>>>>> He /did/ start the conversation; or else how did it end up here? >>>>> >>>>> that's why i qualified it with "proper" in like a real journal >>>> >>>> You are saying there are no proper academic conversations other than >>>> publications in a journal (where references to earlier publications >>>> serve as "replies" to them)? >>> >>> ok man ur right, i'm, wrong >>> >>> eric did start a proper conversation, i'm cool with that >>> >>>> >>>> I say that if you submit something to a journal and get back a >>>> review, you have started a conversation, and that conversation is >>>> properly academic, even if the thing is ultimately rejected. >>> >>> idk man, i don't think the rejections where particularly considerate at >>> all. far far far far far less than polcott has received here >> >> But, I mean, look at where the goalposts are when you reference what >> polcott has received: detailed attention, from multiple people, to each >> of his relativecly small number of claims claims ... for over 20 years >> of Usenet posting. Go to Google Groups; you can find him posting in 2004 >> and maybe earlier. >> >> A review process for a journal submission is not going to draw out over >> twenty years, across multiple people changing posts. > > eric didn't really get any review processes > > lots of people told me to submit to journals, but we're at the point > where someone like eric just gets summarily rejected ... i have > literally no chance > All it takes is 10,000-fold more persistence. Clause AI can really help. > once my result becomes more accepted, i will have a lot to say about the > modern academic processes are conducted > >> >> The reviewers hold the upper hand: they have something that the >> submitter wants, and can cut the process short. >> >> They are also not going to handle repetition: if they give you feedback >> and you just dismiss the feedback and repeat essentially the same >> submission, you are going to be dismissed as a basket case who doesn't >> understand the review process. >> >> Let's not forget: in the first place, why is Olcott here and not on >> Reddit or elsewhere? >> >> Moderation! >> >> One /week/ of posting all this repetitivec crap in a moderated forum, >> and he's history. >> > > i'm just glad there still one bastion of free speech left on this god > forsaking internet > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 12:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fhqes$1ibqp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135946 |
On 18/11/2025 02:16, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > One /week/ of posting all this repetitivec crap in a moderated forum, > and he's history. One week of him /not/ posting it here and comp.theory is history, it'll be closed as unused. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 12:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fhq6t$1ibqp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135904 |
On 17/11/2025 22:41, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > If we wants a protracted convo, he will just have to fire up an NNTP > client and come on down to comp.theory. Yay! -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 16:54 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fg933$16f6f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135899 |
On 11/17/2025 3:50 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 1:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-17, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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: >>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >>> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >>> mathematics were a question of fashion. >> >> We recently discussed the word "doctrine" here. >> >> An "orthodoxy" is, roughly speaking, a group that holds doctrines, >> (in one sense of the word, which I think is the intended one). >> >> Doctrins are beliefs for which there is rational evidence or >> logical basis. >> >> It is insulting to call the hard work of mathematicians mere doctrine, >> and to group them into a lump that is called some kind of orthodoxy. > > it kinda is on the verge of unquestionable orthodoxy > given that someone akin to the status of eric cannot > start a proper academic conversation on it It far worse than that. Speaking out against conventional wisdom here can be a get fired offense. Speaking against it is more like the heretic charges of the Spanish Inquisition than mere orthodoxy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition >> >> There is the possibility that the writer who uses "doctrine" and >> "orthodoxy" is actually communicating the way /he/ approaches the >> discipline. I.e. his own results as a mathematician are only >> doctrine-like beliefs, and so he believes everyone else works that way. >> Such that two mathematicians could hold opposite beliefs about the >> same formal system based on the same axioms, and both be right: >> it's all just doctrine and they happen to belong to different >> orthodoxies: no biggie! >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 20:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251117123700.57@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135872 |
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here. Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry. You believe that you are. Therefore you believe that you are smarter than everyone here: Olcott > Turing > comp.theory regulars other than Olcott Someone who believes he is smarter than a certain group, and who is belief-driven rather than evidence-driven, will never be convinced by any argumentation coming from that group. And, no, you do not always know that you are making a claim that is contrary to the established body of knowledge in the mainstream (the so-called "orthodoxy"). You have made many mistakes in complete ignorance. For instance, you based your work on impure procedures, believing that because C functions are called "functions", they correspond to mathematical functions. You learned about pure functions from discussing here; and only then did you reject them as nonsense, and kept your experimental apparatus built on stateful procedures. Your abort criteria conclude that two identical functions are not the same if they are written in two separate C definitions that compile to a different address. You did not know that was wrong according to the orthodox mainstream; you only rejected that after learning about it here. Basically you know jack squat about the mainstream orthodox knowledge; you just reject it on a case-by-case basis as your ignorance is revealed about this matter or that. Another problem: you believe that the diagonal case D must literally call into the same instance of the H decider, in the same program image. That is not the case; D may incorporate its own implementation of the H algorithm. D is not literally H's caller. D is a /user/ of the same algorithm that H implements. H is required to decide a case which is a client of (built upon) the same algorithm that H implements; it is not a "caller" of H. The same algoirthm can be implemented in an infinite number of ways. You cannot test for "same algorihtm" by comparing function names or pointers. Testing whether two algorithms are the same is an incomputable problem. -- 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 | 2025-11-17 17:20 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgaji$16unn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135890 |
On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here. > > Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry. > Appeal to authority error dumbo, > You believe that you are. Therefore you believe that you are smarter > than everyone here: > > Olcott > Turing > comp.theory regulars other than Olcott > > Someone who believes he is smarter than a certain group, and who is > belief-driven rather than evidence-driven, will never be convinced by > any argumentation coming from that group. > > And, no, you do not always know that you are making a claim that is > contrary to the established body of knowledge in the mainstream (the > so-called "orthodoxy"). You have made many mistakes in complete > ignorance. > > For instance, you based your work on impure procedures, believing that > because C functions are called "functions", they correspond to > mathematical functions. > No I don't. *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept state Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state *Keep repeating unless aborted* (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ None-the-less the input to Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ DOES NOT HALT > You learned about pure functions from discussing here; and only > then did you reject them as nonsense, and kept your experimental > apparatus built on stateful procedures. > I never rejected them. > Your abort criteria conclude that two identical functions are not the > same if they are written in two separate C definitions that compile > to a different address. You did not know that was wrong according > to the orthodox mainstream; you only rejected that after learning > about it here. > They specify a different sequence even if neither of them ever terminate. The only way to deny this is to be too stupid to not see the infinite recursion behavior pattern demonstrated by recursive simulation. > Basically you know jack squat about the mainstream orthodox knowledge; > you just reject it on a case-by-case basis as your ignorance is revealed > about this matter or that. > No. The key is that I know what foundational assumptions are and I also know that in this case they are incorrect. Someone that does not even know what [foundational assumptions] are cannot possibly examine their correctness. > Another problem: you believe that the diagonal case D must literally > call into the same instance of the H decider, in the same program image. > > That is not the case; D may incorporate its own implementation of the H > algorithm. D is not literally H's caller. D is a /user/ of the same > algorithm that H implements. H is required to decide a case which is a > client of (built upon) the same algorithm that H implements; it is not a > "caller" of H. > *Been there done that with you dozens of times* *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept state Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state *Keep repeating unless aborted* (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ > The same algoirthm can be implemented in an infinite number of ways. That one can make the simple essence harder to see does not show that these more complex versions are sound. > You cannot test for "same algorihtm" by comparing function names or > pointers. Testing whether two algorithms are the same is an incomputable > problem. > Recursive simulation is essentially the same as infinite recursion even though neither one is actually infinite for a simulating termination analyzer smart enough to see it. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 23:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251117153340.304@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135920 |
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here. >> >> Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry. > > Appeal to authority error dumbo, You have made it clear that you don't believe anyone here to have the depth to validate your ideas, which is a kind of /ad hominem/ rather than responding to the arguments being made. If Alan Turing were here, you would casually dismiss everything he is saying. Alan Turing is a /relevant/ authority and was more capable in the area than myself. So of course I don't have a chance; I can at best follow Turing's work and see that the results are as they are. >> then did you reject them as nonsense, and kept your experimental >> apparatus built on stateful procedures. >> > > I never rejected them. You rejected them by not fixing your code to use nothing but pure functions! Or maybe you /thought/ that you did that; but you don't recognize that impurity remains. Which shows you don't quite understand it. How can you say that you don't reject the idea that you must use pure functions, while you still have a "Root" variable in the code, which presents as 1 to the top-level H, and 0 to the others, modifying their behavior? It's like you are sayhing "fuck you" to pure functions with every passing day in which that abomination remains in your code! >> Your abort criteria conclude that two identical functions are not the >> same if they are written in two separate C definitions that compile >> to a different address. You did not know that was wrong according >> to the orthodox mainstream; you only rejected that after learning >> about it here. >> > > They specify a different sequence even if neither > of them ever terminate. The only way to deny this > is to be too stupid to not see the infinite recursion > behavior pattern demonstrated by recursive simulation. The infinite behavior certainly creates an infinite simulation of tower. The tower is a nonterminating construct. The simuations individually terminate, but the set of active simluations never dwindles to empty, so there is always another instruction to run. But this is not what H is asked to decide; it's asked about D, which corresponds to one simulation, not the whole stack. >> Basically you know jack squat about the mainstream orthodox knowledge; >> you just reject it on a case-by-case basis as your ignorance is revealed >> about this matter or that. >> > > No. The key is that I know what foundational assumptions > are and I also know that in this case they are incorrect. Your idea of what it means "to know" is flawed. You think that you know something when it pops into your head out of nowhere. >> The same algoirthm can be implemented in an infinite number of ways. > > That one can make the simple essence harder to see > does not show that these more complex versions are sound. No, indeed, so what? That you cannot see grasp the aull generality (that it's about algorithms, not C functions) doesn't mean that your /caricature/ of the problem is sound!!! >> You cannot test for "same algorihtm" by comparing function names or >> pointers. Testing whether two algorithms are the same is an incomputable >> problem. >> > > Recursive simulation is essentially the > same as infinite recursion even though Sure, for values of "essentially" meaning "not really". Define "essentially" with mathematical rigor, like you are Riemann or Cantor. -- 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 | 2025-11-17 22:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgtim$1b6iu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135930 |
On 11/17/2025 5:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here.
>>>
>>> Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry.
>>
>> Appeal to authority error dumbo,
>
> You have made it clear that you don't believe anyone here to have the
> depth to validate your ideas, which is a kind of /ad hominem/
> rather than responding to the arguments being made.
>
All the arguments made have been essentially
>>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the
>>>> current orthodoxy. I know that.
The only claim that ever had any actual substance
is that the repetitive pattern that DD simulated
by HHH demonstrates may not be a computable function
in its current physical implementation.
The complete jackasses on this forum keep trying
to get away with saying there is no repetitive pattern
as if they are actually too stupid to recognize
something that is essentially the infinite recursion
behavior pattern.
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
Infinite_Recursion();
return;
}
Then they stupidly try and get away with its not
really infinite if HHH aborts it.
Then the Infinite_Recursion() above is not really
infinite dipshit. How stupid can you be to try and
get away with saying that Infinite_Recursion() is
not itself?
> If Alan Turing were here, you would casually dismiss everything
> he is saying.
>
> Alan Turing is a /relevant/ authority and was more capable
> in the area than myself.
>
> So of course I don't have a chance; I can at best follow
> Turing's work and see that the results are as they are.
>
>>> then did you reject them as nonsense, and kept your experimental
>>> apparatus built on stateful procedures.
>>>
>>
>> I never rejected them.
>
> You rejected them by not fixing your code to use nothing but
> pure functions!
>
It might still actually be a pure function because
all of the subsequent "invocations" are merely just
HHH directly or indirectly manipulating its own data.
When the slave simulations write to their tape it
is the tape of HHH that it allocates to them. HHH
can read this portion of its own tape.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251117222724.835@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135962 |
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2025 5:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry.
>>>
>>> Appeal to authority error dumbo,
>>
>> You have made it clear that you don't believe anyone here to have the
>> depth to validate your ideas, which is a kind of /ad hominem/
>> rather than responding to the arguments being made.
>>
>
> All the arguments made have been essentially
> >>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the
> >>>> current orthodoxy. I know that.
>
> The only claim that ever had any actual substance
> is that the repetitive pattern that DD simulated
> by HHH demonstrates may not be a computable function
> in its current physical implementation.
>
> The complete jackasses on this forum keep trying
> to get away with saying there is no repetitive pattern
There is a repetitive pattern, but you're not open to
suggestions that you may have misinterpreted what it says.
> as if they are actually too stupid to recognize
> something that is essentially the infinite recursion
> behavior pattern.
Launching simulations which launch simulations isn't control flow
recursion, and doesn't even simulate control flow recurson when the
contexts that create the simulations do not wait for those smulations to
finish.
Qute simply, under a functon call, the caller deos nothing until the
callee returns. The caller cannot "abort" the caller at an arbitrary
point.
You can't just sweep aside this difference.
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
> Infinite_Recursion();
> return;
> }
>
> Then they stupidly try and get away with its not
> really infinite if HHH aborts it.
DD is is what is not infinite when HHH(DD) aborts the lower level DD
and returns 0 to the upper level DD.
Infinite_Recurson is obvously infinite.
> Then the Infinite_Recursion() above is not really
> infinite dipshit. How stupid can you be to try and
> get away with saying that Infinite_Recursion() is
> not itself?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
(Several months ago, I jokingly said, one time, not that
Infinite_Recursion halts, but that you might in some sense be on better
footing if you had your apparatus decide it that way. You still
seem to be stuck on this?)
Of course Infinite_Recursion is non-halting.
I also have no idea why you always bring it up when a "D"
case is being discussed as an irrelevant counterexample.
It seems like a dodge, every time. A form of whatboutism.
"How can you say that D is terminating; what about Infinite_Recursion?"
>> If Alan Turing were here, you would casually dismiss everything
>> he is saying.
>>
>> Alan Turing is a /relevant/ authority and was more capable
>> in the area than myself.
>>
>> So of course I don't have a chance; I can at best follow
>> Turing's work and see that the results are as they are.
>>
>>>> then did you reject them as nonsense, and kept your experimental
>>>> apparatus built on stateful procedures.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never rejected them.
>>
>> You rejected them by not fixing your code to use nothing but
>> pure functions!
>>
>
> It might still actually be a pure function because
> all of the subsequent "invocations" are merely just
> HHH directly or indirectly manipulating its own data.
If only the outer HHH is a pure function, then there is nothing
to discuss beyond that. It's just a bit grinder which returns
the wrong value 0 for something that halts.
Your rhetoric about the simulated DD specifying a non-halting
machine falls down because the simulated DD is not a pure
function; it's just some bits churning in a blender operated
by HHH, not corresponding to a function.
--
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 | 2025-11-18 08:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fhudv$1jjdc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135964 |
On 11/18/2025 12:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 5:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry.
>>>>
>>>> Appeal to authority error dumbo,
>>>
>>> You have made it clear that you don't believe anyone here to have the
>>> depth to validate your ideas, which is a kind of /ad hominem/
>>> rather than responding to the arguments being made.
>>>
>>
>> All the arguments made have been essentially
>>>>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the
>>>>>> current orthodoxy. I know that.
>>
>> The only claim that ever had any actual substance
>> is that the repetitive pattern that DD simulated
>> by HHH demonstrates may not be a computable function
>> in its current physical implementation.
>>
>> The complete jackasses on this forum keep trying
>> to get away with saying there is no repetitive pattern
>
> There is a repetitive pattern, but you're not open to
> suggestions that you may have misinterpreted what it says.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> as if they are actually too stupid to recognize
>> something that is essentially the infinite recursion
>> behavior pattern.
>
> Launching simulations which launch simulations isn't control flow
> recursion, and doesn't even simulate control flow recurson when the
> contexts that create the simulations do not wait for those smulations to
> finish.
>
How the Hell do you get that?
If DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own simulated final halt state then DD DOES NOT HALT.
You are just playing nutty head games.
> Qute simply, under a functon call, the caller deos nothing until the
> callee returns. The caller cannot "abort" the caller at an arbitrary
> point.
>
As soon as the exact same sequence of machine
states repeats exactly once (for whatever reason)
we have proven non halting.
> You can't just sweep aside this difference.
>
>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>> {
>> Infinite_Recursion();
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> Then they stupidly try and get away with its not
>> really infinite if HHH aborts it.
>
> DD is is what is not infinite when HHH(DD) aborts the lower level DD
> and returns 0 to the upper level DD.
>
Likewise Infinite_Recursion() is not infinite recursion
when HHH aborts it. So Infinite_Recursion() is not itself.
> Infinite_Recurson is obvously infinite.
>
>> Then the Infinite_Recursion() above is not really
>> infinite dipshit. How stupid can you be to try and
>> get away with saying that Infinite_Recursion() is
>> not itself?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
Infinite_Loop()
Infinite_Recursion()
DD() all simulated by HHH would never stop
running unless aborted this means that they
specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
You cannot say that an actual infinite loop is
not infinite because HHH aborts it.
> (Several months ago, I jokingly said, one time, not that
> Infinite_Recursion halts, but that you might in some sense be on better
> footing if you had your apparatus decide it that way. You still
> seem to be stuck on this?)
>
> Of course Infinite_Recursion is non-halting.
>
> I also have no idea why you always bring it up when a "D"
> case is being discussed as an irrelevant counterexample.
>
DD simulated by HHH is non-halting thus the input
to HHH(DD) is non-halting when the halting problem
(a) Requires HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
that its input specifies.
(b) Requires HHH(DD) to report on behavior other
than the behavior that its input specifies.
It contradicts itself.
> It seems like a dodge, every time. A form of whatboutism.
>
> "How can you say that D is terminating; what about Infinite_Recursion?"
>
>>> If Alan Turing were here, you would casually dismiss everything
>>> he is saying.
>>>
>>> Alan Turing is a /relevant/ authority and was more capable
>>> in the area than myself.
>>>
>>> So of course I don't have a chance; I can at best follow
>>> Turing's work and see that the results are as they are.
>>>
>>>>> then did you reject them as nonsense, and kept your experimental
>>>>> apparatus built on stateful procedures.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never rejected them.
>>>
>>> You rejected them by not fixing your code to use nothing but
>>> pure functions!
>>>
>>
>> It might still actually be a pure function because
>> all of the subsequent "invocations" are merely just
>> HHH directly or indirectly manipulating its own data.
>
> If only the outer HHH is a pure function, then there is nothing
> to discuss beyond that. It's just a bit grinder which returns
> the wrong value 0 for something that halts.
>
DD simulated by HHH is non-halting thus the input
to HHH(DD) is non-halting when the halting problem
(a) Requires HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
that its input specifies.
(b) Requires HHH(DD) to report on behavior other
than the behavior that its input specifies.
It contradicts itself.
> Your rhetoric about the simulated DD specifying a non-halting
> machine falls down because the simulated DD is not a pure
> function;
Because pure functions must always halt and
non-halting programs are in the domain of HHH
therefore DD need not be a pure function.
Please admit that you are wrong about this.
Computable functions are the basic objects of
study in computability theory. Informally, a
function is computable if there is an algorithm
that computes the value of the function for
every value of its argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> it's just some bits churning in a blender operated
> by HHH, not corresponding to a function.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 21:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251118132405.48@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135983 |
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2025 12:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2025 5:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Appeal to authority error dumbo,
>>>>
>>>> You have made it clear that you don't believe anyone here to have the
>>>> depth to validate your ideas, which is a kind of /ad hominem/
>>>> rather than responding to the arguments being made.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All the arguments made have been essentially
>>>>>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the
>>>>>>> current orthodoxy. I know that.
>>>
>>> The only claim that ever had any actual substance
>>> is that the repetitive pattern that DD simulated
>>> by HHH demonstrates may not be a computable function
>>> in its current physical implementation.
>>>
>>> The complete jackasses on this forum keep trying
>>> to get away with saying there is no repetitive pattern
>>
>> There is a repetitive pattern, but you're not open to
>> suggestions that you may have misinterpreted what it says.
>>
>
><MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
> would never stop running unless aborted then
>
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
></MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
>>> as if they are actually too stupid to recognize
>>> something that is essentially the infinite recursion
>>> behavior pattern.
>>
>> Launching simulations which launch simulations isn't control flow
>> recursion, and doesn't even simulate control flow recurson when the
>> contexts that create the simulations do not wait for those smulations to
>> finish.
>
> How the Hell do you get that?
> If DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
> own simulated final halt state then DD DOES NOT HALT.
> You are just playing nutty head games.
>
>> Qute simply, under a functon call, the caller deos nothing until the
>> callee returns. The caller cannot "abort" the caller at an arbitrary
>> point.
>>
>
> As soon as the exact same sequence of machine
> states repeats exactly once (for whatever reason)
> we have proven non halting.
It has to be the same machine. You have jumbled together machine
states from multiple simulation. That only suggests that something is
repeating, but not within the same control flow.
In an infinite tower of simulations involving H and D, of course there
will be an infinite number of calls from D to H, and if we are
collecting execution traces into a single buffer, we will repeatedly see
these, often without any intervening conditionals.
Mike Terry implemented a clean version of your test case (a pair of functions
MJT_HHH and MJT_DDD) in combination with the "reckoning" code from me.
See message ID <10edf6q$3r1an$1@dont-email.me>
If you want to play wth the code, ask Mike.
He got an infinite tower:
Quote:
------ ----
Trace 3: MJT_HHH(MJT_DD). These have the same abort logic as HHH, but
without the global variable misuse. HHH[0] decides non-halting.
Resumed simulations all halt with same behaviour as HHH[n] deciding
non-halting (like HHH[0]) then DDD[n] returning.
DDD[1] ends, after HHH[1] detects "infinite recursion" and returns 0.
DDD[2] ends, after HHH[2] detects "infinite recursion" and returns 0.
DDD[3] ends, after HHH[3] detects "infinite recursion" and returns 0.
DDD[4] ends, after HHH[4] detects "infinite recursion" and returns 0.
...
[...]
Trace 3 is meaningful, with each simulation level behaving the same etc.. and
shows your infinite tower as you envisioned it, I'd say!
------------
The square brackets are the simulation level notation which I think
you introduced but removed due to it being confusing. Mike it put it back.
It's not confusing; it's necessary for understanding.
We can see DDD[i] ending for simulation levels 1, 2, 3, ... after
the corresponding HHH[i] detecting 0.
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return;
> }
Must we repeat this pontless exercise for Infinite_Loop
also? Yes, that also doesn't terminate. Again, that is not
a D-like function with respect to any H.
>
> Infinite_Loop()
> Infinite_Recursion()
> DD() all simulated by HHH would never stop
> running unless aborted this means that they
> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> You cannot say that an actual infinite loop is
> not infinite because HHH aborts it.
No, I cannot.
What reward do you want Petey? Dinosaur sticker, bouncy ball, or lollipop?
>> (Several months ago, I jokingly said, one time, not that
>> Infinite_Recursion halts, but that you might in some sense be on better
>> footing if you had your apparatus decide it that way. You still
>> seem to be stuck on this?)
>>
>> Of course Infinite_Recursion is non-halting.
>>
>> I also have no idea why you always bring it up when a "D"
>> case is being discussed as an irrelevant counterexample.
>>
>
> DD simulated by HHH is non-halting thus the input
A more careful analysis and actual simulation shows otherwise.
> to HHH(DD) is non-halting when the halting problem
> (a) Requires HHH(DD) to report on the behavior
> that its input specifies.
>
> (b) Requires HHH(DD) to report on behavior other
> than the behavior that its input specifies.
>
> It contradicts itself.
The behavior of DD is too complex for HHH to trace, and come up with the right
answer. After HHH gives up tracing and produces the wrong answer, we simply
continue tracing DD and see that it halts.
Moreover the conceptual UTM(DD) function can see DD through to termination.
It is not ratonal to argue that DD doesnn't contain the necessary information
to determine that it is halting when UTM can do it.
And H uses all the same simulation tools as the UTM, except for /adding/
some abort testing.
> DD simulated by HHH is non-halting thus the input
DD simulated by HHH is exactly the same simulation as DD simluated by UTM
right up to the point that HHH quits!
Literally, UTM takes that exact simulation that HHH would abandons, and just
keeps going past that point, showing that DD reaches termination.
We can also reproduce that with the actual simulation left behind by HHH, which
is identical to the UTM one at that same point in the execution. If we hand it
to UTM, it will finish it.
That shows that the thing H was deciding and what it walked away from is
is the same as the input to UTM: the terminating D.
There is no other D. D does not have multiple personalities.
>> Your rhetoric about the simulated DD specifying a non-halting
>> machine falls down because the simulated DD is not a pure
>> function;
>
> Because pure functions must always halt and
False. Pure function must not have side effects or exhibit variation
due to external inputs, global variables and the like.
Rather, multiple invocations of the same function function with the same
arguments must not halt with a different return value.
If a function does not halt that doesn't give it an excuse
to perform side effects.
You're perepetrating more Monty Python logic. You read something on the
Wikipedia about pure functions having to return the same value for
the same arguments. From that you wrongly inferred that the duck is
made of wood. I mean, sorry, that pure functions /must/ return.
That is not true; if and when a pure function returns, its return
value must be a mathematical function of the arguments, and not
a procedural result influenced by side effects and state outside
of the function.
> Please admit that you are wrong about this.
Nobody going to "admit" your Monty Python witch nonsense.
Everythng in your experimental framework must be scruplously have
a behavior that does not vary with any side effects or external
state.
> Computable functions are the basic objects of
> study in computability theory. Informally, a
> function is computable if there is an algorithm
> that computes the value of the function for
> every value of its argument.
An abstract function is partially computable when we can model it with a
computatonal function, over some domain of interest. When that domain is
the full domain, it is (totally) computable.
The abstract function itself is not a computation; it is a mathematical
function.
--
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 | 2025-11-18 16:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fitir$1spea$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136015 |
On 11/18/2025 3:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/18/2025 12:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 5:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry. >>>>>> >>>>>> Appeal to authority error dumbo, >>>>> >>>>> You have made it clear that you don't believe anyone here to have the >>>>> depth to validate your ideas, which is a kind of /ad hominem/ >>>>> rather than responding to the arguments being made. >>>>> >>>> >>>> All the arguments made have been essentially >>>>>>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>>>>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. >>>> >>>> The only claim that ever had any actual substance >>>> is that the repetitive pattern that DD simulated >>>> by HHH demonstrates may not be a computable function >>>> in its current physical implementation. >>>> >>>> The complete jackasses on this forum keep trying >>>> to get away with saying there is no repetitive pattern >>> >>> There is a repetitive pattern, but you're not open to >>> suggestions that you may have misinterpreted what it says. >>> >> >> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >> would never stop running unless aborted then >> >> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> >>>> as if they are actually too stupid to recognize >>>> something that is essentially the infinite recursion >>>> behavior pattern. >>> >>> Launching simulations which launch simulations isn't control flow >>> recursion, and doesn't even simulate control flow recurson when the >>> contexts that create the simulations do not wait for those smulations to >>> finish. >> >> How the Hell do you get that? >> If DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its >> own simulated final halt state then DD DOES NOT HALT. >> You are just playing nutty head games. > > >> >>> Qute simply, under a functon call, the caller deos nothing until the >>> callee returns. The caller cannot "abort" the caller at an arbitrary >>> point. >>> >> >> As soon as the exact same sequence of machine >> states repeats exactly once (for whatever reason) >> we have proven non halting. > > It has to be the same machine. You have jumbled together machine > states from multiple simulation. That only suggests that something is > repeating, but not within the same control flow. > It is identical machine code nitwit -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 17:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fiu19$1suam$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136015 |
On 11/18/2025 3:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/18/2025 12:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 5:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You would say the same thing to Alan Turing if he were here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody here is better than Alan Turing, sorry. >>>>>> >>>>>> Appeal to authority error dumbo, >>>>> >>>>> You have made it clear that you don't believe anyone here to have the >>>>> depth to validate your ideas, which is a kind of /ad hominem/ >>>>> rather than responding to the arguments being made. >>>>> >>>> >>>> All the arguments made have been essentially >>>>>>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>>>>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. >>>> >>>> The only claim that ever had any actual substance >>>> is that the repetitive pattern that DD simulated >>>> by HHH demonstrates may not be a computable function >>>> in its current physical implementation. >>>> >>>> The complete jackasses on this forum keep trying >>>> to get away with saying there is no repetitive pattern >>> >>> There is a repetitive pattern, but you're not open to >>> suggestions that you may have misinterpreted what it says. >>> >> >> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >> would never stop running unless aborted then >> >> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> >>>> as if they are actually too stupid to recognize >>>> something that is essentially the infinite recursion >>>> behavior pattern. >>> >>> Launching simulations which launch simulations isn't control flow >>> recursion, and doesn't even simulate control flow recurson when the >>> contexts that create the simulations do not wait for those smulations to >>> finish. >> >> How the Hell do you get that? >> If DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its >> own simulated final halt state then DD DOES NOT HALT. >> You are just playing nutty head games. > > >> >>> Qute simply, under a functon call, the caller deos nothing until the >>> callee returns. The caller cannot "abort" the caller at an arbitrary >>> point. >>> >> >> As soon as the exact same sequence of machine >> states repeats exactly once (for whatever reason) >> we have proven non halting. > > It has to be the same machine. You have jumbled together machine > states from multiple simulation. That only suggests that something is > repeating, but not within the same control flow. > > In an infinite tower of simulations involving H and D, of course there > will be an infinite number of calls from D to H, and if we are > collecting execution traces into a single buffer, we will repeatedly see > these, often without any intervening conditionals. > > Mike Terry implemented a clean version of your test case (a pair of functions > MJT_HHH and MJT_DDD) in combination with the "reckoning" code from me. > > See message ID <10edf6q$3r1an$1@dont-email.me> > > If you want to play wth the code, ask Mike. > > He got an infinite tower: > > Quote: > > ------ ---- > > Trace 3: MJT_HHH(MJT_DD). These have the same abort logic as HHH, but > without the global variable misuse. HHH[0] decides non-halting. > Resumed simulations Indicates cheating nitwit. You cannot show one contiguous sequence of steps in C that explains how and why DD simulated by HHH reaches its own simulated "return" statement final halt state. Within the context of your statement below it makes more sense that CIA mind control devices beamed the above lies into your mind against your will than you are telling the truth. news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 07:52 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ff9aj$sn47$1@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. > >> 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. > Within its false assumptions it has been conclusively proven. *Another tenured professor of computer science* Halting misconceived? Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017 https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 16:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ffgs5$v3so$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135865 |
On 17/11/2025 13:52, olcott wrote: > On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >> I think that by "it" you mean the halting theorem. Yes I'm sure of >> myself because this theorem has been unequivocably proven as well as >> being utterly trivial. >> > > Within its false assumptions it has been conclusively proven. Isn't that how everything works? > *Another tenured professor of computer science* > Halting misconceived? Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017 > https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf Funny, when I was mooting Scheme I was considering concatenative languages and Forth in particular but decided to go no further than what I knew of Kaz' experience because none of them are good enough, having finite storage. Well, it seems from that paper we are three Forths of the way there. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 10:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ffigh$vn0k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135867 |
On 11/17/2025 10:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 17/11/2025 13:52, olcott wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> >>> I think that by "it" you mean the halting theorem. Yes I'm sure of >>> myself because this theorem has been unequivocably proven as well as >>> being utterly trivial. >>> >> >> Within its false assumptions it has been conclusively proven. > > Isn't that how everything works? > No. Usually the proofs have a sound basis. > >> *Another tenured professor of computer science* >> Halting misconceived? Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017 >> https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf > > > Funny, when I was mooting Scheme I was considering concatenative > languages and Forth in particular but decided to go no further than what > I knew of Kaz' experience because none of them are good enough, having > finite storage. > > Well, it seems from that paper we are three Forths of the way there. > Yes. > > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fd6nc$bfbt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135772 |
On 16/11/2025 08:49, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> 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. "established knowledge" is another way to spell "received doctrine". When you feel the latter is pejorative instead of a direct accurate description you require the former phrase instead. When you feel the former is pejorative you require another new phrase. That's how we recognise a problem is present. On the topic of received doctrine, I refer you to your comments on the journal. The most important knowledge and how it is taught must be frequently tested and you will just have to suffer it to happen without you because we depend on that happening. -- 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 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fdgi0$2ton$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135800 |
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 16/11/2025 08:49, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> 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. > "established knowledge" is another way to spell "received doctrine". Not at all. They are very different. Doctrine can be, for example, based on religion rather than knowledge. Knowledge is fact based. "Received" here just means "as accepted by a certain class of people", like received pronunciation. "Received doctrine" is much weaker than "established knowledge", and may well be false. > When you feel the latter is pejorative instead of a direct accurate > description you require the former phrase instead. When you feel the > former is pejorative you require another new phrase. That's how we > recognise a problem is present. There is no problem apparent. > On the topic of received doctrine, I refer you to your comments on the > journal. Uh? What journal would that be? And do you mean my comments about this journal, or my comments contained within it? > The most important knowledge and how it is taught must be frequently > tested and you will just have to suffer it to happen without you because > we depend on that happening. Again, not at all. We don't need frequently to test Pythagoras's Theorem, for example. We don't need continually to test that 2 + 2 = 4. Similarly, we don't need continuously to test the Halting Theorem. All three of these examples are trivial, and have been proven beyond any doubt. If you think they, and other proven results at the same level need continually to be tested, then you will never progress to more advanced theorems, and certainly never to the frontiers of knowledge. Indeed, if mankind had always insisted on the sort of testing you assert to be necessary, we would never have progressed beyond the stone age. > -- > Tristan Wibberley -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 18:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fdrca$hf3o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135800 |
On 11/16/2025 12:55 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 16/11/2025 08:49, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> 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. > > > "established knowledge" is another way to spell "received doctrine". > When you feel the latter is pejorative instead of a direct accurate > description you require the former phrase instead. When you feel the > former is pejorative you require another new phrase. That's how we > recognise a problem is present. > > On the topic of received doctrine, I refer you to your comments on the > journal. > > The most important knowledge and how it is taught must be frequently > tested and you will just have to suffer it to happen without you because > we depend on that happening. > Computer science, Math and Logic have foundational assumptions that they take for the infallible word of God. Within those assumptions Computer science, Math and Logic are provably correct. ZFC got rid of Russell's Paradox by merely changing the foundation. That is exactly what I am doing for a whole class of undecidable decision problems. > -- > 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. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web