Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135170 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 637 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:55 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:10 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:00 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:28 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:50 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:57 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:08 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 00:00 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 20:46 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 04:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:19 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 10:45 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 21:43 +0800
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:12 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:28 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:35 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:38 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:55 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:17 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:20 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:34 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:53 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 00:07 +0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 14:16 +0000
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 21:31 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:59 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:11 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:44 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:54 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:22 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:25 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:00 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 07:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-09 12:22 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-09 06:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 06:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 18:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:43 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 11:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:19 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:58 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-10 11:43 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 17:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 03:55 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 06:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:03 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 19:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 15:38 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 16:56 -0500
How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 19:38 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:33 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:05 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:45 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 05:52 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 23:59 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:50 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:20 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:41 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:11 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 07:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-12 15:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 09:11 -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 02:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-13 04:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:55 -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 08:32 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:36 -0600
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 07:38 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 17:40 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:20 -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 19:38 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:22 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:59 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:09 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:48 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:50 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:21 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:00 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:15 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:43 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-18 18:04 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 12:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:01 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 21:30 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:48 -0600
Weasel word double talk excuses =--- AKA Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:46 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:10 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:20 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:51 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:42 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 02:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:37 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 06:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:16 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:17 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:41 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:00 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:59 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-27 04:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 07:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:16 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:21 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2025-11-27 07:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:08 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:38 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:18 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:27 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 01:25 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:24 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:36 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:14 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:49 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:58 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:14 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 10:59 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:27 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:45 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:29 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:19 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:29 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:31 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 16:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:24 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:54 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:07 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:14 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:34 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:17 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:15 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:21 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:37 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:52 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:56 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:04 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 13:19 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:12 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:51 +0200
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 01:00 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:56 -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 19:12 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:24 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:23 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:14 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:21 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 16:24 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:46 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:26 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:21 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:01 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:27 -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 02:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:07 -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 04:30 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:31 +0000
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 22:45 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:52 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 23:08 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 00:14 -0500
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 05:23 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-19 10:58 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-23 21:20 +0000
Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-24 11:23 +0200
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 07:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:50 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:11 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 21:58 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:49 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:22 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:51 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 12:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 03:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:03 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:56 +0000
Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:29 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:00 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 23:02 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:23 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:24 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 14:53 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 13:32 -0800
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:44 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:45 +0000
DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 21:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 23:54 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:37 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 17:55 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:08 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:20 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:31 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:23 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-25 05:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 23:25 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:34 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:43 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 23:51 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:21 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:37 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 12:52 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:59 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:32 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:28 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:45 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:45 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-11-24 19:45 +0100
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 18:12 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:32 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:25 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 13:47 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 11:20 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:14 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:19 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:15 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:25 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:12 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 23:33 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:33 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:37 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 02:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:10 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:38 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:47 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 19:43 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:24 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:42 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 08:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:49 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:50 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:46 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:52 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:42 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:38 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:32 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-28 17:24 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-22 10:25 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-24 22:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:20 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:47 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:50 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 10:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:33 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:36 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 11:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:29 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:08 +0000
Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:22 -0600
Re: Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:35 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:05 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-26 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:36 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:41 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 18:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 12:05 -0800
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 25 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 32 Next page →
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <PmomPx5ExcnL8jmH53zG2PgeGZQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136503 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 04:01, olcott a écrit : > You insist on making sure to continue to > fail to understand the deep meaning of the > occurs_check. Peter, the occurs_check does not carry any “deep meaning.” It is a mechanical guard in Prolog that prevents the construction of infinite data structures. That’s all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5r4i$18tc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136505 |
On 11/25/2025 9:03 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 04:01, olcott a écrit : >> You insist on making sure to continue to >> fail to understand the deep meaning of the >> occurs_check. > > Peter, the occurs_check does not carry any “deep meaning.” > It is a mechanical guard in Prolog that prevents the construction of > infinite data structures. > > That’s all. Because the expression is semantically unsound because the evaluation of the expression would remain stuck in an infinite loop forever never to be resolved to a truth value. *SEMANTICALLY UNSOUND* is the deep meaning. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <otCVQ.51185$liu8.48165@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #136499 |
On 11/25/25 9:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:34, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>> >>>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>>>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>>>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>>>> proof of its truth. >>>>> >>>>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>>>> They didn’t. >>>>> >>>>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>>>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>>>> freaks them out. >>>>> >>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>>>> >>>>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase >>>>>> diagonalization — it just gives it nicer types. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>>> 01 G >>>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>>>> >>>>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>>>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>>>> >>>>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>>>> disappear. >>>>>> It doesn’t. >>>>>> Only your theory does that. >>>>> >>>>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>>>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>>>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>>>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>>>> >>>>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>>>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >>>> >>>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >>>> >>>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >>>> >>> >>> Because you utterly refuse to pay enough attention. >>> >>>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >>>> >>>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning >>>> reduces to proof. >>>> >>> >>> All *objects of thought* can be defined in terms of other >>> *objects of thought* >>> >>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the >>> following definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote: >>> >>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the >>> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic >>> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties >>> of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such >>> relations, etc. >>> >>>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >>>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >>>> >>>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem >>>> out of existence. >>>> >>>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >>>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >>>> Mathematics does not. >>>> >>> >>> That you fail to understand that it conclusively >>> proves that the expression is semantically >>> unsound is your ignorance on not my mistake. >> >> Peter, your entire argument now rests on one mistake: >> >> You think that a self-referential fixed point is “semantically >> unsound” because Prolog refuses to unify a cyclic term. >> > > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop > > > YOU are stuck in an infinite evaluation loop, because you have no actual basis to evalute the statement. Your "logic" is just too primative to handle the subject you are talking about. Yes, everything is defined in terms of other things, which means we CAN'T just move to root meanings, as there is no root meaning in such a system. The problem you have is you refuse to accept that in formal logic, we start with terms that just have their own meaning, the axioms, and thing derive from them. Since you refuse to learn these axioms, nothing has meaning to you. In natural language, the community agrees to base meaning of some words, and developes the rich language from there. A fundmental point of Natural Language is that meaning is complex and context dependent as it has evolved from community agreement. YOU have no ability to "define" a word in Natural Language, it is always a community agreement. You can try to "coin" a new word/meaning, but that doesn't establish it as such until the community adopts it, and they might change it. YOU ARE NOT GOD, AND DON'T GET TO CHANGE THE RULES. Sorry, perhaps that is a shock to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10gvobe$1s6q2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136489 |
On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:34, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>>> >>>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>> >>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>>> proof of its truth. >>>> >>>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>>> They didn’t. >>>> >>>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>>> freaks them out. >>>> >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>>> >>>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization >>>>> — it just gives it nicer types. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>> 01 G >>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>>> >>>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>>> >>>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>>> disappear. >>>>> It doesn’t. >>>>> Only your theory does that. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>>> >>>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >>> >>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >>> >>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >>> >> >> Because you utterly refuse to pay enough attention. >> >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >>> >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning >>> reduces to proof. >>> >> >> All *objects of thought* can be defined in terms of other >> *objects of thought* >> >> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the following >> definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote: >> >> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the >> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic >> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties >> of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such >> relations, etc. >> >>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >>> >>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem >>> out of existence. >>> >>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >>> Mathematics does not. >>> >> >> That you fail to understand that it conclusively >> proves that the expression is semantically >> unsound is your ignorance on not my mistake. > > Peter, your entire argument now rests on one mistake: > > You think that a self-referential fixed point is “semantically unsound” > because Prolog refuses to unify a cyclic term. > > But Prolog’s occurs-check does not detect “semantic unsoundness.” > It detects infinite data structures in Prolog. > > Mathematics is not Prolog. > > Lambda calculus allows fixed points. > Type theory allows fixed points. > Arithmetic allows fixed points. > Diagonalization is a fixed point. > > G <-> not Prov(F,G) > cycle -> therefore invalid > > My calculator overflows on 10^100 > therefore big integers are semantically unsound. > > My calculator overflows on 10^100 > therefore big integers are semantically unsound. > > No, Peter. > It is your implementation that cannot handle the structure, not the > mathematics. > > As for “objects of thought are typed,” yes — and typed systems also have > Godel-style incompleteness theorems. > HOL, type theory, Montague-style semantics, all of them. > > Typing does not prevent diagonalization. > It just prevents nonsense terms like phi(phi). > Godel’s construction never uses those. > > You are not proving G is “semantically unsound.” > You are proving that your framework cannot express diagonalization. > But any framework that cannot express diagonalization also cannot > express arithmetic — and therefore cannot be “the entire body of objects > of thought.” > > In short: > > You didn’t refute Godel. > You refuted your own system’s ability to model arithmetic. > You have proven that you have some technical competence by even knowing those words. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10h02ah$20u71$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136489 |
On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:34, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>>> >>>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>> >>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>>> proof of its truth. >>>> >>>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>>> They didn’t. >>>> >>>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>>> freaks them out. >>>> >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>>> >>>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization >>>>> — it just gives it nicer types. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>> 01 G >>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>>> >>>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>>> >>>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>>> disappear. >>>>> It doesn’t. >>>>> Only your theory does that. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>>> >>>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >>> >>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >>> >>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >>> >> >> Because you utterly refuse to pay enough attention. >> >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >>> >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning >>> reduces to proof. >>> >> >> All *objects of thought* can be defined in terms of other >> *objects of thought* >> >> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the following >> definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote: >> >> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the >> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic >> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties >> of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such >> relations, etc. >> >>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >>> >>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem >>> out of existence. >>> >>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >>> Mathematics does not. >>> >> >> That you fail to understand that it conclusively >> proves that the expression is semantically >> unsound is your ignorance on not my mistake. > > Peter, your entire argument now rests on one mistake: > > You think that a self-referential fixed point is “semantically unsound” > because Prolog refuses to unify a cyclic term. > > But Prolog’s occurs-check does not detect “semantic unsoundness.” > It detects infinite data structures in Prolog. > > Mathematics is not Prolog. > > Lambda calculus allows fixed points. > Type theory allows fixed points. > Arithmetic allows fixed points. > Diagonalization is a fixed point. > > G <-> not Prov(F,G) > cycle -> therefore invalid > > My calculator overflows on 10^100 > therefore big integers are semantically unsound. > > My calculator overflows on 10^100 > therefore big integers are semantically unsound. > > No, Peter. > It is your implementation that cannot handle the structure, not the > mathematics. > > As for “objects of thought are typed,” yes — and typed systems also have > Godel-style incompleteness theorems. > HOL, type theory, Montague-style semantics, all of them. > > Typing does not prevent diagonalization. > It just prevents nonsense terms like phi(phi). > Godel’s construction never uses those. > > You are not proving G is “semantically unsound.” > You are proving that your framework cannot express diagonalization. > But any framework that cannot express diagonalization also cannot > express arithmetic — and therefore cannot be “the entire body of objects > of thought.” > > In short: > > You didn’t refute Godel. > You refuted your own system’s ability to model arithmetic. > The Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true". is formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP) // AKA LP is defined as ~True(LP) that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))) never ending infinite recursion. That other formal systems are insufficiently expressive to see this DOES NOT MAKE ME WRONG. % This sentence is not true. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. That you do not understand that Prolog ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. means this same expansion DOES NOT MAKE ME WRONG. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5p2i$jnr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136481 |
On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>> >>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>> >>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>> >> >> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >> >> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >> proof of its truth. >> >>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>> They didn’t. >> >> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >> freaks them out. >> >> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >> >>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization — >>> it just gives it nicer types. >>> >> >> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >> 00 ↔ 01 02 >> 01 G >> 02 ¬ 03 >> 03 Prov 04 >> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >> >> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >> >>> Montague built a translation function. >>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>> disappear. >>> It doesn’t. >>> Only your theory does that. >> >> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >> >> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. > > Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) > > Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: > > Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). > > Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning reduces > to proof. > > Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, > Godel “cannot possibly exist.” > > But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem out > of existence. > > Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; > it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. > Mathematics does not. > Do you now what an infinite loop is in programming? If a payroll calculation is stuck in an infinite loop is that a good thing? -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <v0UQf14OCupfEZm-WurV8l2KJpE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136486 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 03:36, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>> >>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>> >>> >>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>> >>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>> proof of its truth. >>> >>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>> They didn’t. >>> >>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>> freaks them out. >>> >>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>> >>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization — >>>> it just gives it nicer types. >>>> >>> >>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>> 01 G >>> 02 ¬ 03 >>> 03 Prov 04 >>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>> >>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>> >>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>> disappear. >>>> It doesn’t. >>>> Only your theory does that. >>> >>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>> >>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >> >> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >> >> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >> >> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >> >> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning reduces >> to proof. >> >> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >> >> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem out >> of existence. >> >> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >> Mathematics does not. >> > > Do you now what an infinite loop is in programming? > If a payroll calculation is stuck in an infinite > loop is that a good thing? Peter, yes — I know what an infinite loop is in programming. And that is exactly why your analogy misses the point. An infinite loop is a runtime problem in a program. But Godel’s fixed point is not a program, and nobody is trying to “run” it. Mathematics does not evaluate G like code. It does not simulate G, compute G, or reduce G. It reasons about its provability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g8h0i$11k1u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136492 |
On 11/25/2025 6:38 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:36, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>>> >>>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>> >>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>>> proof of its truth. >>>> >>>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>>> They didn’t. >>>> >>>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>>> freaks them out. >>>> >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>>> >>>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization >>>>> — it just gives it nicer types. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>> 01 G >>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>>> >>>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>>> >>>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>>> disappear. >>>>> It doesn’t. >>>>> Only your theory does that. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>>> >>>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >>> >>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >>> >>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >>> >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >>> >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning >>> reduces to proof. >>> >>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >>> >>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem >>> out of existence. >>> >>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >>> Mathematics does not. >>> >> >> Do you now what an infinite loop is in programming? >> If a payroll calculation is stuck in an infinite >> loop is that a good thing? > > Peter, yes — I know what an infinite loop is in programming. > And that is exactly why your analogy misses the point. > > An infinite loop is a runtime problem in a program. Hummm... Not necessarily? Think of a server loop. It can halt if it gets a certain command, but ideally, it wants to be up running "forever", in a sense... Think of an infinite IFS fractal loop that ideally wants to plot forever. Its process runs for as long as it can. The hardware can die out, but that does not mean the code halted, just its "vehicle", so to speak... > But Godel’s fixed point is not a program, and nobody is trying to “run” it. > > Mathematics does not evaluate G like code. > It does not simulate G, compute G, or reduce G. > It reasons about its provability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g8j0a$m2mf$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #136492 |
On 11/25/2025 8:38 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:36, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>>> >>>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>> >>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>>> proof of its truth. >>>> >>>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>>> They didn’t. >>>> >>>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>>> freaks them out. >>>> >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>>> >>>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization >>>>> — it just gives it nicer types. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>> 01 G >>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>>> >>>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>>> >>>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>>> disappear. >>>>> It doesn’t. >>>>> Only your theory does that. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>>> >>>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >>> >>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >>> >>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >>> >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >>> >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning >>> reduces to proof. >>> >>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >>> >>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem >>> out of existence. >>> >>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >>> Mathematics does not. >>> >> >> Do you now what an infinite loop is in programming? >> If a payroll calculation is stuck in an infinite >> loop is that a good thing? > > Peter, yes — I know what an infinite loop is in programming. > And that is exactly why your analogy misses the point. > > An infinite loop is a runtime problem in a program. > But Godel’s fixed point is not a program, and nobody is trying to “run” it. > > Mathematics does not evaluate G like code. > It does not simulate G, compute G, or reduce G. > It reasons about its provability. The evaluation of formal mathematical expressions is required to follow an evaluation sequence. 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! Here is the Liar Paradox formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory (you can Google it) LP := ~True(LP) // LP is defined as ~True(LP) This essentially specifies infinite recursion if you have any idea what that is. When evaluated LP becomes: ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...)))))) -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g639e$2pqn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136481 |
On 11/25/2025 6:09 PM, Python wrote: [...] > bachelor = unmarried The liar tells that to a woman he is hitting on at a bar. I am a bachelor. Well, tell that to his wife? ;^o [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <20251125183534.522@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136479 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague > Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math > phobia. So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that simulations that are paused still exist and have future states. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5phf$o1v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136488 |
On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >> phobia. > > So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that > simulations that are paused still exist and have future > states. > I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. You already agreed that I am correct so this subject is closed. 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. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <20251125190730.139@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136496 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>> phobia. >> >> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >> states. >> > > I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your own psychotic nonsense. > You already agreed that I am correct so this subject > is closed. Whaaat ... > 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. But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; it is completely uncontroversial. -- 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 | 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5rft$1c37$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136510 |
On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. >>> >>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>> states. >>> >> >> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. > > In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your > own psychotic nonsense. > >> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >> is closed. > > Whaaat ... > >> 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. > > But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. > Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, > which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. > > I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; > it is completely uncontroversial. > I really did figure out how to determine the correct halt status that the halting problem's counter-example input specifies to it decider. If no one here wants to acknowledge that besides Ben then you can all go to literal Hell as the bible says is the fate of all liars. I can show how this does prove that the halting problem itself is incorrect yet no one here gives a rat's ass. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <20251125192037.887@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136515 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >> >> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >> it is completely uncontroversial. > > I really did figure out how to determine the > correct halt status that the halting problem's > counter-example input specifies to it decider. You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed for it to prove a single damn thing: - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. - ... -- 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 | 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5sd3$1if1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136524 |
On 11/25/2025 9:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>> >>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>> it is completely uncontroversial. >> >> I really did figure out how to determine the >> correct halt status that the halting problem's >> counter-example input specifies to it decider. > > You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed > for it to prove a single damn thing: > > - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to > be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. > It turned out that this is kosher. > - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 > to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. > > - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when > HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. > > - ... > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <20251125211402.211@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136530 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed >> for it to prove a single damn thing: >> >> - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to >> be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. > > It turned out that this is kosher. No, it didn't, whatsoever. >> - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 >> to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. >> >> - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when >> HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. -- 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 | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <svCVQ.51186$liu8.12429@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #136530 |
On 11/25/25 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>> >>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >> >> You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed >> for it to prove a single damn thing: >> >> - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to >> be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. >> > > It turned out that this is kosher. Just like a ham and cheese sandwich. Your just don't know what you are talking about, and prove it with you stupid lying claims. > >> - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 >> to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. >> >> - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when >> HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. >> >> - ... >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g6gs1$8fgp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136515 |
olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: > On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>> phobia. >>>> >>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>> states. >>>> >>> >>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >> >> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your >> own psychotic nonsense. >> >>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>> is closed. >> >> Whaaat ... >> >>> 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. >> >> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >> >> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >> it is completely uncontroversial. > > I really did figure out how to determine the > correct halt status that the halting problem's > counter-example input specifies to it decider. The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting problem. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g75j3$gf3b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136560 |
On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>> phobia. >>>>> >>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>> states. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>> >>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your >>> own psychotic nonsense. >>> >>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>> is closed. >>> >>> Whaaat ... >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>> >>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>> it is completely uncontroversial. >> >> I really did figure out how to determine the >> correct halt status that the halting problem's >> counter-example input specifies to it decider. > > The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine > specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the > decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting > problem. > That is inaccurate. The halting problem is about behaviors that finite string machine description inputs specify. First you must understand this: *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* Then you can understand this: The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it requires a halt decider to report on anything besides what its actual input actually specifies. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web