Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135517 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-14 00:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-11-27 00:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 170 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 00:08 +0000
Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:36 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 00:45 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 02:32 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:38 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 06:35 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:13 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:19 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:56 +0000
Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:18 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:45 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:39 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 06:39 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:25 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:22 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:31 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:48 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:08 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:54 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:17 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:33 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:13 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:28 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:33 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:44 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:42 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:10 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 03:52 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:26 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:42 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:23 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 19:59 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:02 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:19 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:38 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:02 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:03 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully --- LLM olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:36 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully --- LLM Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:25 +0000
Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:35 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:51 +0000
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:13 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:43 +0000
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:13 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:38 +0100
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:53 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:00 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-14 02:16 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-11-14 03:08 +0042
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-14 03:52 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:57 +0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-16 01:06 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- Ben olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:18 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-13 21:03 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-14 06:21 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-14 17:41 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:49 -0700
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:59 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 17:20 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 04:04 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:36 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:27 +0000
Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:29 -0600
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:04 +0000
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:16 -0600
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:41 +0000
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:04 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-16 01:10 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:21 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 02:48 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 20:55 -0600
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 21:01 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 12:10 +0800
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 22:41 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 23:13 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:56 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 19:02 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 02:21 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:49 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:01 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:35 -0800
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:29 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:40 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 05:03 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:48 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 14:39 +0000
Halt Deciders cannot report on the behavior of their caller olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:12 -0600
Kaz say that he is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:19 -0600
Kaz PROVES that he is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:25 -0600
Who agrees that Kaz is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:26 -0600
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:12 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 18:06 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 12:14 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:47 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 18:16 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 12:22 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:49 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 19:02 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:05 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:11 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:42 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:28 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:24 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:02 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:49 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:52 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 16:28 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:10 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 17:40 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 15:51 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:04 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:23 +0000
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- AKA Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 09:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- AKA Kaz Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 16:32 +0000
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:48 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:42 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:48 -0600
How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 22:46 +0100
Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:02 -0600
Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 23:15 +0100
Re: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:54 -0600
What did you do before 2001 ? (Was: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 09:50 +0100
What are top ten books in set theory? (Re: What did you do before 2001 ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 10:16 +0100
Slim Fermats Last Theorem (FLT) only for Lean4? (Was: What are top ten books in set theory?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 11:14 +0100
Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:15 -0800
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:58 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 16:35 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 17:48 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:57 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:31 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:39 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:54 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:23 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 6d] Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:13 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 12:05 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 14:43 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 12:51 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 10:44 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 09:32 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 13:28 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 13:14 -0800
human understanding of true and proof are both flawed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 15:23 -0600
Re: human understanding of true and proof are both flawed dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 14:41 -0800
Re: human understanding of true and proof are both flawed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 17:03 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 17:32 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 12:10 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-01 20:22 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-12-01 21:48 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-12-02 14:56 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 09:33 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-12-02 16:04 +0000
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:47 -0600
The quality of reviewers on USENET olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:11 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:50 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correct refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:44 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 02:45 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-12-01 23:42 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:03 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-27 00:04 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:29 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:35 -0800
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 10:48 -0600 |
| Subject | People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10ffjlo$1030o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135869 |
On 11/17/2025 10:32 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior
>>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of
>>>> knowing what function is calling it.
>
>>>> This means that when the halting problem
>>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of
>>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring
>>>> something outside the scope of computation.
>
>>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
>
>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>
> Utterly wilful and stupid would be more like it.
>
>> Yes and now if you could just translate that
>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
>> with a sound basis.
>
>> Not to denigrate you but I think that this
>> would be totally out of your depth as it
>> would be for most everyone.
>
> Your thinking is out of kilter with reality.
>
Yet you cannot show that on the basis of reasoning
so you try to dishonestly get way with mere baseless
rhetoric.
>> The information that HHH is required to report
>> on simply is not contained in its input.
>
> Wrong. It is.
>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
If it was then DD simulated by HHH would derive
the same sequence of steps as DD simulated by HHH1.
HHH1 is identical to HHH except that DD does not
call HHH1 at all and DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive
simulation. That is the complete reason for the
different behavior.
That you flat out lie about this can be construed
as the "reckless disregard for the truth" that
loses libel cases. It cannot be construed as any
rebuttal of this self-evident truth.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>> The information that HHH is required to report
>> on simply is not contained in its input.
>
> Wrong. It is.
>
>> The information that HHH is required to report
>> on simply is not contained in its input.
>
> Wrong. It is.
>
>> The information that HHH is required to report
>> on simply is not contained in its input.
>
> Wrong. It is.
>
>> The information that HHH is required to report
>> on simply is not contained in its input.
>
> Wrong. It is.
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2025 Olcott
>
>> My 28 year goal has been to make
>> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 17:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10ffmqv$2u40$4@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135870 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 10:32 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior >>>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of >>>>> knowing what function is calling it. >>>>> This means that when the halting problem >>>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of >>>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring >>>>> something outside the scope of computation. >>>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. >>> *I will be utterly relentless about this* >>> *I will be utterly relentless about this* >>> *I will be utterly relentless about this* >> Utterly wilful and stupid would be more like it. >>> Yes and now if you could just translate that >>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning >>> with a sound basis. >>> Not to denigrate you but I think that this >>> would be totally out of your depth as it >>> would be for most everyone. >> Your thinking is out of kilter with reality. > Yet you cannot show that on the basis of reasoning > so you try to dishonestly get way with mere baseless > rhetoric. I can, have done, as have many other posters here, and you just ignore reasoning. >>> The information that HHH is required to report >>> on simply is not contained in its input. >> Wrong. It is. [ .... ] > If it was then DD simulated by HHH would derive > the same sequence of steps as DD simulated by HHH1. There's nothing wrong with the input, as many others have explained to you many times. It is HHH and HHH1 which are defective. They are the same function and return different results? Haha! [ .... ] > That you flat out lie about this can be construed > as the "reckless disregard for the truth" that > loses libel cases. It cannot be construed as any > rebuttal of this self-evident truth. I never lie on Usenet, as I have said before several times. I care deeply about the truth and truthfulness. You lie continually in several ways (one of them, right here, is your construction of a falsehood as a "self-evident truth"). If you think I have committed libel, you are welcome to sue me in a German court. You would lose disastrously. [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 11:48 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10ffn60$11790$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135876 |
On 11/17/2025 11:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 10:32 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior
>>>>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of
>>>>>> knowing what function is calling it.
>
>>>>>> This means that when the halting problem
>>>>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of
>>>>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring
>>>>>> something outside the scope of computation.
>
>>>>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
>
>>>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>>>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>>>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>
>>> Utterly wilful and stupid would be more like it.
>
>>>> Yes and now if you could just translate that
>>>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
>>>> with a sound basis.
>
>>>> Not to denigrate you but I think that this
>>>> would be totally out of your depth as it
>>>> would be for most everyone.
>
>>> Your thinking is out of kilter with reality.
>
>
>> Yet you cannot show that on the basis of reasoning
>> so you try to dishonestly get way with mere baseless
>> rhetoric.
>
> I can, have done, as have many other posters here, and you just ignore
> reasoning.
>
>>>> The information that HHH is required to report
>>>> on simply is not contained in its input.
>
>>> Wrong. It is.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> If it was then DD simulated by HHH would derive
>> the same sequence of steps as DD simulated by HHH1.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the input, as many others have explained to
> you many times. It is HHH and HHH1 which are defective. They are the
> same function and return different results? Haha!
>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that returns to DD that returns to HHH1.
Until you show the correct execution traces proving
that DD simulated by HHH is the same as DD simulated
by HHH1 you are still showing a
"reckless disregard for the truth".
"reckless disregard for the truth".
"reckless disregard for the truth".
"reckless disregard for the truth".
"reckless disregard for the truth".
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 22:46 +0100 |
| Subject | How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) |
| Message-ID | <10fipfh$82j6$4@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #135866 |
Hi Acyclic Ocelot. Who was your logic teacher, and how were you tought logic (in case you were tought logic at all). How would you do it differently now, how would you somebody teach logic? What is your logic teaching "theory", is it like learning to ride a bike? You need some helping hand that stabilizes your thought? Or can you just start and then land on your face flat on the asphalt? Bye olcott schrieb: > On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > *I will be utterly relentless about this* > *I will be utterly relentless about this* > *I will be utterly relentless about this*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 16:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) |
| Message-ID | <10fiqd0$1rv37$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136011 |
On 11/18/2025 3:46 PM, Mild Shock wrote: <big snip> *I remember you in the Prolog Group* *I remember you in the Prolog Group* *I remember you in the Prolog Group* The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language This sentence is not true. It is not true about what? It is not true about being not true. It is not true about being not true about what? It is not true about being not true about being not true. Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! This is formalized in the Prolog programming language ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the formalized Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves that the Liar Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been semantically unsound all these years. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 23:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) |
| Message-ID | <10fir5a$83mj$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #136016 |
Hi, So you say I was your logic teacher? I doubt so. Who was your logic teacher from the cradle to the appearance of the internet, when you still had to carry heavy paper books, while visiting the lake front in summer, looking for a shadowy tree, and the enjoying some logic? What books did you read ? What people did you know ? Bye olcott schrieb: > On 11/18/2025 3:46 PM, Mild Shock wrote: > <big snip> > > *I remember you in the Prolog Group* > *I remember you in the Prolog Group* > *I remember you in the Prolog Group* > > The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language > > This sentence is not true. > It is not true about what? > It is not true about being not true. > It is not true about being not true about what? > It is not true about being not true about being not true. > Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! > > > This is formalized in the Prolog programming language > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. > > Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the > resolution of an expression remains stuck in > an infinite loop. Just as the formalized Prolog > determines that there is a cycle in the directed > graph of the evaluation sequence of LP the simple > English proves that the Liar Paradox never gets > to the point. It has merely been semantically > unsound all these years. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 16:54 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) |
| Message-ID | <10fites$1spea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136017 |
On 11/18/2025 4:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote: > Hi, > > So you say I was your logic teacher? I doubt > so. Who was your logic teacher from the cradle > to the appearance of the internet, when > > you still had to carry heavy paper books, while > visiting the lake front in summer, looking for > a shadowy tree, and the enjoying some logic? > > What books did you read ? What people did you know ? > > Bye > I Learned FOL from Wikipedia. I know PhD computer science professor Eric Hehner though many email conversations. This was the only book that I read on logic. https://www.amazon.com/Formal-Semantics-Cambridge-Textbooks-Linguistics/dp/0521376106 I have been a software engineer since 1984. I am the creator of Google[Olcott's Minimal Type Theory] > olcott schrieb: >> On 11/18/2025 3:46 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >> <big snip> >> >> *I remember you in the Prolog Group* >> *I remember you in the Prolog Group* >> *I remember you in the Prolog Group* >> >> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language >> >> This sentence is not true. >> It is not true about what? >> It is not true about being not true. >> It is not true about being not true about what? >> It is not true about being not true about being not true. >> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! >> >> >> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. >> >> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the >> resolution of an expression remains stuck in >> an infinite loop. Just as the formalized Prolog >> determines that there is a cycle in the directed >> graph of the evaluation sequence of LP the simple >> English proves that the Liar Paradox never gets >> to the point. It has merely been semantically >> unsound all these years. >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 09:50 +0100 |
| Subject | What did you do before 2001 ? (Was: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree?) |
| Message-ID | <10fk0d1$algj$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #136018 |
Hi, Wikipedia only exists since 2001. How did people learn Logic before the new millenium? Seems you have been alive before 2001 already, when you are a software engineer since 1984. No logic for Acyclic Ozelot before 2001. Did really only bring Wikipedia, a secondary reference, logic to you. No primary sources of logic? Bye olcott schrieb: > > I Learned FOL from Wikipedia. > I have been a software engineer since 1984.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 10:16 +0100 |
| Subject | What are top ten books in set theory? (Re: What did you do before 2001 ?) |
| Message-ID | <10fk1te$amn7$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #136061 |
Hi, How it started, DeepSeek: me: What are top ten books in set theory? ai: bla bla ai: Classic Set Theory: For Guided Independent Study by Derek C. Goldrei How its going, ChatGPT: me: What are top ten books in set theory? ai: bla bla ai: The Incomparable Axioms — Koellner (more philosophical, modern) me: Nice try, I don't find "The Incomparable Axioms — Koellner", you halucinated that ai: You’re right — I made a mistake. I hallucinated a book title. Sorry about that. ai: Peter Koellner has written influential papers and a thesis/lecture notes, but there is no book titled The Incomparable Axioms by Koellner that I can find. The Search for New Axioms https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/7989/53014647-MIT.pdf LoL Bye Mild Shock schrieb: > Hi, > > Wikipedia only exists since 2001. How did people > learn Logic before the new millenium? Seems you > have been alive before 2001 already, > > when you are a software engineer since 1984. No > logic for Acyclic Ozelot before 2001. Did really > only bring Wikipedia, a secondary reference, > > logic to you. No primary sources of logic? > > Bye > > olcott schrieb: >> >> I Learned FOL from Wikipedia. > > I have been a software engineer since 1984.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 11:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Slim Fermats Last Theorem (FLT) only for Lean4? (Was: What are top ten books in set theory?) |
| Message-ID | <10fk5ao$aote$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #136062 |
Hi, Is there a Slim Fermats Last Theorem (FLT) but only for Lean4? There is a new proof: We formalize a complete proof of the regular case of Fermat's Last Theorem in the Lean4 theorem prover. Our formalization includes a proof of Kummer's lemma, that is the main obstruction to Fermat's Last Theorem for regular primes. Rather than following the modern proof of Kummer's lemma via class field theory, we prove it by using Hilbert's Theorems 90-94 in a way that is more amenable to formalization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01466v3 Is this also available for Rocq or Isabelle/HOL. In as far I feel with ChatGPTs invention of a set theory book: > ai: The Incomparable Axioms — Koellner (more philosophical, modern) If we have to axiom systems A and B, it is often easy to invoke proof theory and then show A ⊆ B or B ⊆ A. Trouble might start if we want to show A ⊈ B and B ⊈ A, this traditional fell into the category of model theory, but modern proof assistants might be better off maybe. Such a proof could be a pebble game, as in EF games, or even some things that go beyond EF games. Now for the question whether Rocq or Isabelle/HOL has also a proof, the comparability of Axioms is somehow aggravated, when different proof systems have different foundations. What we then need to compare is F+A with G+B, where F and G are the varying foundations. Who said that logic is easy and beautiful? Bye Mild Shock schrieb: > Hi, > > How it started, DeepSeek: > > me: What are top ten books in set theory? > ai: bla bla > ai: Classic Set Theory: For Guided Independent Study by Derek C. Goldrei > > How its going, ChatGPT: > > me: What are top ten books in set theory? > ai: bla bla > ai: The Incomparable Axioms — Koellner (more philosophical, modern) > > me: Nice try, I don't find "The Incomparable Axioms — > Koellner", you halucinated that > > ai: You’re right — I made a mistake. I hallucinated a > book title. Sorry about that. > > ai: Peter Koellner has written influential papers and > a thesis/lecture notes, but there is no book titled > The Incomparable Axioms by Koellner that I can find. > > The Search for New Axioms > https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/7989/53014647-MIT.pdf > > LoL > > Bye > > Mild Shock schrieb: >> Hi, >> >> Wikipedia only exists since 2001. How did people >> learn Logic before the new millenium? Seems you >> have been alive before 2001 already, >> >> when you are a software engineer since 1984. No >> logic for Acyclic Ozelot before 2001. Did really >> only bring Wikipedia, a secondary reference, >> >> logic to you. No primary sources of logic? >> >> Bye >> >> olcott schrieb: >>> >>> I Learned FOL from Wikipedia. >> > I have been a software engineer since 1984. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 15:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) |
| Message-ID | <10fiumj$1stcj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136016 |
On 11/18/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/18/2025 3:46 PM, Mild Shock wrote: > <big snip> > > *I remember you in the Prolog Group* > *I remember you in the Prolog Group* > *I remember you in the Prolog Group* > > The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language > > This sentence is not true. > It is not true about what? > It is not true about being not true. > It is not true about being not true about what? > It is not true about being not true about being not true. > Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! [...] DD says, I can halt, or not halt... That is 100% true about DD. So, lets explore both paths, and fin the sim when they are _both_ hit. Actually, the following models your DD: ____________________________ 1 HOME 5 PRINT "ct_dr_fuzz lol. ;^)" 6 P0 = 0 7 P1 = 0 10 REM Fuzzer... ;^) 20 A$ = "NOPE!" 30 IF RND(1) < .5 THEN A$ = "YES" 100 REM INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$ 110 PRINT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$ 200 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666 300 P0 = P0 + 1 400 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000 500 GOTO 10 666 PRINT "OK!" 667 P1 = P1 + 1 700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0 710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1 720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000 730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!" 740 GOTO 10 1000 1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit." 1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0 1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1 ____________________________ Fair enough?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 11:41 -0600 |
| Subject | People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10ffmnu$1100c$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135766 |
On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior >> of its caller because HHH has no way of >> knowing what function is calling it. >> >> This means that when the halting problem >> requires HHH to report on the behavior of >> its caller: DD() that its is requiring >> something outside the scope of computation. > > That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. > *I will be utterly relentless about this* *I will be utterly relentless about this* *I will be utterly relentless about this* *I will be utterly relentless about this* Yes and now if you could just translate that mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning with a sound basis. Not to denigrate you but I think that this would be totally out of your depth as it would be for most everyone. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. -- 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 22:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <20251117144959.250@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135875 |
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior >>> of its caller because HHH has no way of >>> knowing what function is calling it. >>> >>> This means that when the halting problem >>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of >>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring >>> something outside the scope of computation. >> >> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. >> > > *I will be utterly relentless about this* > *I will be utterly relentless about this* > *I will be utterly relentless about this* > *I will be utterly relentless about this* > > Yes and now if you could just translate that > mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning > with a sound basis. > > Not to denigrate you but I think that this > would be totally out of your depth as it > would be for most everyone. I am certainly not smarter than Turing, but you think you are. I do not believe that HHH is required to report on the behavior of its caller. There is no such thing. In the computing environment you have devised, the top activation of HHH has a caller, which is the (one and only) activation of main. That observation is not interesting or relevant, and, more importantly, /must/ not be relevant. Pure functions do not have a context. Given an expression f(x, y), it denotes eactly the same calculation no matter where it is placed, provided that the placement does not override the meaning of the symbol f (that is to say, there isn't a lexically enclosing shadowing redefinition of f). This property is called "referential transparency" in CS. The test case D can incorporate any one of an infinite number of possible representations of the /algorithm/ on which H is based. It uses that algorithm, but does not call H. The circumstances of the halting problem are not limited to the narrow conception that is embodied in just your C programming experiment. It is about algorithms, not specific functions in a programming language, which are all in the same image, such that D calls the same address H that is the procedure deciding it. You've not acknowledged your mistakes, such as: - continuing to use impure functions (e.g. mutating global execution trace buffer; distinguishing "Root == 1" H functions from "Root == 0"). - treating unequal addresses as necessarily unequal functions. - conflating the instruction events from multiple simulations into a single execution trace buffer. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 16:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10fkrkv$2bc8l$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135912 |
On 17/11/2025 22:58, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > - continuing to use impure functions (e.g. mutating global > execution trace buffer; distinguishing "Root == 1" H > functions from "Root == 0"). Woah there fella! The halting problem is about state machines, not pure functions. Which is not to say there aren't similarly devastating issues with the other two points. -- 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 17:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <20251119094036.932@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136086 |
On 2025-11-19, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 17/11/2025 22:58, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> - continuing to use impure functions (e.g. mutating global >> execution trace buffer; distinguishing "Root == 1" H >> functions from "Root == 0"). > > Woah there fella! The halting problem is about state machines, not pure > functions. Recursive functions and Turing machines are equivalent. The halting problem is about recursive functions too. In any case, topics in the halting problem cannot be properly explored using impure procedures --- not in such a way that we assume that those procedures directly correspond to recursive functions. We can't have a procedure H whch has two behaviors based on whether it is the first invocation or subsequent, and talk about that procedure as a single recursive function H. We may be able to model that function H as another function H' that takes additional arguments representing all the external state that H depends on. It becomes H(P, Root) instead of H(P). Then it is obvious that H(D, True) and H(D, False) are different deciders. We have to explicitly pick which one of those two the diagonal case D invokes. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 17:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10fl0es$2d0vq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136093 |
On 19/11/2025 17:48, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Recursive functions and Turing machines are equivalent. The halting > problem is about recursive functions too. There exists an equivalent ... > In any case, topics in the halting problem cannot be properly explored > using impure procedures --- not in such a way that we assume that those > procedures directly correspond to recursive functions. No. The Halting Theorem has no problems demonstrable with leaky simulation (emulation) sandboxes. Topics can be explored with leaky sandboxes, topics such as "How can leaky sandboxes and their effects be characterised?" and "What are the relationships between various recursive functions and various Turing Machines and their generalisations?" -- 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <20251119102624.633@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136094 |
On 2025-11-19, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 19/11/2025 17:48, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >> Recursive functions and Turing machines are equivalent. The halting >> problem is about recursive functions too. > > There exists an equivalent ... > > >> In any case, topics in the halting problem cannot be properly explored >> using impure procedures --- not in such a way that we assume that those >> procedures directly correspond to recursive functions. > > No. The Halting Theorem has no problems demonstrable with leaky > simulation (emulation) sandboxes. That is correct, but what you cannot say is that specific stateful procedures in that leaky simulation correspond to pure recursive functions in the theory of computation. (And, therefore, to individual Turing Machines.) You can build a model of your leaky sandbox in whch you identify what the Turing Machines or functions are. (Once you do that, it would probably make sense for your claims about halting to revolve around that.) > Topics can be explored with leaky sandboxes, topics such as "How can > leaky sandboxes and their effects be characterised?" and "What are the > relationships between various recursive functions and various Turing > Machines and their generalisations?" Olcott's leaky Halt7.obj/x86utm_exe sandbox /cannot/ be characterized in such a way we refer to the stateful C procedure HHH as a recursive primitive 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 | 2025-11-19 12:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10fl2tn$2egi8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136094 |
On 11/19/2025 11:57 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 19/11/2025 17:48, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >> Recursive functions and Turing machines are equivalent. The halting >> problem is about recursive functions too. > > There exists an equivalent ... > > >> In any case, topics in the halting problem cannot be properly explored >> using impure procedures --- not in such a way that we assume that those >> procedures directly correspond to recursive functions. > > No. The Halting Theorem has no problems demonstrable with leaky > simulation (emulation) sandboxes. > > Topics can be explored with leaky sandboxes, topics such as "How can > leaky sandboxes and their effects be characterised?" and "What are the > relationships between various recursive functions and various Turing > Machines and their generalisations?" > > ChatGPT agrees yet in this case I cannot independently verify that it is correct. https://chatgpt.com/share/691e0ea1-423c-8011-b3ad-20e2371d9496 > -- > 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <20251119105058.973@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136103 |
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > ChatGPT agrees yet in this case I cannot independently > verify that it is correct. Why, how intellectually modest of you. Can you describe what it is that you are not able to do, exactly? What does it mean when you "verify" something correct? I imagine it is something like, you search your mind for a baseless belief backed by handwaving arguments whch matches the poposition in question. If you find such a belief, then the proposition is verified correct. If you find an opposite belief, then the proposition is incorrect. Otherwise it remains unverified. Close? -- 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 | 2025-11-19 11:23 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" |
| Message-ID | <10fkuf3$2d5f2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135912 |
On 11/17/2025 4:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior
>>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of
>>>> knowing what function is calling it.
>>>>
>>>> This means that when the halting problem
>>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of
>>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring
>>>> something outside the scope of computation.
>>>
>>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
>>>
>>
>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*
>>
>> Yes and now if you could just translate that
>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
>> with a sound basis.
>>
>> Not to denigrate you but I think that this
>> would be totally out of your depth as it
>> would be for most everyone.
>
> I am certainly not smarter than Turing, but you think you are.
>
> I do not believe that HHH is required to report on the behavior
> of its caller. There is no such thing.
>
Original Linz Turing Machine H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // accept state
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // reject state
Even Linz requires Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to report
on the behavior it its caller.
*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
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
Ĥ.embedded_H cannot tell that it is not H
Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // HHH(DD)==0
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy // HHH1(DD)==1
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web