Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #137187 > unrolled thread
| Started by | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-04 00:22 -0800 |
| Last post | 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 253 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-04 00:22 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 10:49 +0200
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-04 01:10 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 12:26 +0200
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-05 20:31 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-05 23:34 -0800
I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:16 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 08:41 -0800
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 11:00 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 14:07 +0200
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 01:26 +0000
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:17 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 06:36 +0000
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:25 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 11:29 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:28 +0200
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 13:44 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 13:22 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 13:41 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:21 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 16:57 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 22:07 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 13:32 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:48 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 12:22 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 05:59 +0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 16:25 -0600
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 16:24 -0600
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 21:58 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 20:31 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 13:59 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:41 -0500
on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 15:21 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 21:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:28 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:31 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 11:51 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 19:13 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 17:30 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:06 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:38 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:00 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:33 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 09:53 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:51 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 09:39 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 20:54 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 23:02 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:12 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 21:23 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-09 10:55 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 05:56 +0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-11 11:35 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 14:45 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-11 13:02 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 15:20 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-12 21:22 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 07:15 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 08:01 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 10:22 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:48 +0200
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:42 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-15 15:00 +0000
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:56 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:44 +0200
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 08:39 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-16 12:07 +0200
The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:30 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:01 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:08 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:29 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:49 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:53 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 12:39 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 19:53 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 00:00 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 02:38 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 07:22 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-19 22:07 +0000
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 17:55 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-20 12:54 +0000
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 08:32 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 07:00 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 08:32 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 08:07 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 09:41 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 08:51 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 13:56 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-18 13:03 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 07:06 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 19:53 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-19 12:02 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 08:44 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-20 12:05 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 05:42 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-21 12:29 +0200
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-12 10:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-12 21:18 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-13 09:26 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 17:17 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-13 20:50 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-14 10:46 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 15:22 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 11:13 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-14 21:07 +0000
Re: on just search the literature bruh dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 11:32 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 14:42 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 22:40 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 07:04 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 12:05 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-16 13:27 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-16 21:41 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 07:31 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 13:07 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 13:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 13:24 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 13:54 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 14:09 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 17:05 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:30 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 20:50 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 00:06 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:04 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 22:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 23:13 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 16:35 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 16:39 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 18:45 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 16:54 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 19:06 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 21:13 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 16:46 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 20:57 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 14:09 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 18:07 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-19 19:33 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 20:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 17:31 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 22:15 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 07:22 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 21:11 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 10:11 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-19 11:10 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 17:01 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 01:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-20 11:21 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 11:32 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 14:50 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 13:16 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 17:02 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 16:41 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 18:11 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 17:30 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 08:32 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 16:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 19:42 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 17:21 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 21:57 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 19:31 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 22:58 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 21:23 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 21:52 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 12:07 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 13:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 17:32 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 17:40 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 17:56 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 18:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 18:22 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 00:18 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 13:27 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 18:39 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-21 21:54 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 21:30 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 10:10 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 10:24 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 13:33 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 10:39 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 13:49 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 10:57 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 14:02 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 11:11 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 14:45 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 12:06 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 15:37 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 12:58 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 16:26 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 19:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 22:16 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 19:24 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 22:43 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 21:22 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 21:22 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-25 00:34 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-24 21:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-24 22:02 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-25 07:45 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-25 07:45 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 22:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-18 12:33 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 07:03 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 19:53 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 16:16 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 18:19 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 21:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-24 22:56 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-24 15:48 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-24 21:22 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:30 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:00 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-16 18:15 +0000
DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 18:33 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-17 10:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 07:48 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-15 23:16 +0000
Re: on just search the literature bruh polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 17:23 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-16 08:39 +0000
The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:21 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 22:47 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-16 08:40 +0000
Re: on just search the literature bruh olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:03 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-13 14:43 +0000
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-13 13:41 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 18:43 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-12-08 01:46 +0000
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:37 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 09:48 +0000
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 11:23 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-09 22:18 +0000
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-09 14:48 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 16:54 -0600
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:35 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 13:02 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 13:03 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 18:49 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 17:52 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 19:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <10h83o5$gh76$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137387 |
On 12/8/25 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 8:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 12/8/25 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/8/25 2:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 12/8/25 4:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/25 11:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/25 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Because Turing PROVED that the Halting Problem can't be computed, >>>>>>> thus, the limit exists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We may not be able to precisely define the line betweem >>>>>>> computable and non-computable (or decidable vs non-decidable), >>>>>>> but we know it exists as we have things know to be on both sides. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a number of general propositions that have been proven to >>>>>>> be uncomputable/undecidable, like the Halting Problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we narrow the question to a specific machine, that machine >>>>>>> can fall into 3 camps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Known to Halt. >>>>>>> Known to Never Halt. >>>>>>> Unknown in behavior (but we know it will either halt of not). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question of knowABILITY is tougher, as it is easy to prove we >>>>>>> know an answer (if we do) as knowing the answer shows it is >>>>>>> knowable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Showing that some things might be knowable but not currently know >>>>>>> is possible, but that does NOT mean we can answer the knowability >>>>>>> question for all things that are knowable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why are you so stuck in the fact that between the domain of the >>>>>>> decidable and the undeciable there is a band of "we don't know" >>>>>>> that might contain some things that "we can't know". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is part of the problem of working in infinite spaces, you >>>>>>> can always end up with a piece you don't know about. >>>>>> >>>>>> u put urself in a mathematical jam, >>>>>> >>>>>> can't actually show me what one of these apparently non-halting >>>>>> machines with "unknown" behavior actually looks like because then >>>>>> ur theory falls apart, despite the fact we can in fact emuerate >>>>>> over all machines ... >>>>>> >>>>>> so idk wtf u think u'r actually talking about there buddy >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I don't need to talk about machines with unknowable results, as >>>>> they aren't the topic of the problem. >>>> >>>> ... what??? the halting problem is literally ur proof they exist, >>>> how are they not the topic??? >>>> >>> >>> Nope. It seems you don't understand the words I am using. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> It seems you are stuck in a Naive Set Theory system that insists on >>>>> having Sets based on just a description of them. >>>> >>>> and ur stuck on believing in machine ghosts >>> >>> Nope, I believe your ghosts exist, but they are not the based of the >>> actual proof. >>> >>> Which is that a "Correct Halt Decider" is the ghost, as we can show >>> the existance of an input (that varies based on the decider we are >>> talking about) that it will get wrong. >> >> after which u declare that problem to not actually exist and defeat ur >> own proof's meaning, > > I never said the PROBLEM doesn't exist, just that no decider can > correctly answer the problem for all inputs. > > Maybe you don't understand the nature of problems and answers. > >> >> and try to make up for this by supposing (but not actually >> demonstrating) that there must be instead some ghost machines that >> look nothing like the paradoxes you construct (because those *cant* >> exist), but if we could point to or describe specifically in any way, >> that would also self-defeat their existence! > > Where did I use these ghost machines? > > > >> >> my god the kind of shit the theory of computing has been blowing up >> their asshole for the past century: > > The only shit is what is in your head, not understand what is being said. > >> >> wanking on about unknowable, yet non-halting ghost machines none can >> ever discover lest their theory unravel into a puff of irreconcilable >> smoke! > > it seems you are stuck in your ghosts > >> >> imagine believing in limitations that can't even be known! > > Why do you say that? > > The limitation is well know, that the halting function can not be computed. > > This means that EVERY attempt to compute it will give some wrong answers. > > That doesn't mean there needs to be a specific input that we can't know > its halting, even if that might be an implication of that fact. > > For the proposition, the existance of such a machine isn't important. > > It seems you have a problem with "abstract" concepts, like having to > look at the answers for ALL inputs for the decider to meet the > requirements. > > Note, very specifically, for a given machine, there ALWAYS is a machine > that correctly answer for it, we just might not know which machine it is > that gives the answer. The the problem of Halting for just a specific > machine is not uncomputable, even if we don't know the answer, all that > means is we can't tell which machines were right and which were wrong. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> What I am talking about is that we can prove that there can not >>>>> exist of a finite algorithm that will always tell if any finite >>>>> algorithn it is given the full description of will reach an answer >>>>> or not. >>>> >>>> but u can't give me a what logical structure a finite algorithm >>>> would provably fail in, because all the hypothetical failures >>>> demonstrated in undecidability proofs *DO NOT EXIST* >>> >>> Sure, for any finite halt decision algorithm, to decide on an >>> algorithm that uses that algorithm, and then does the opposite. >> >> i asked for a non-hypothetical example that actually exists > > Of what? > > It seems you are stuck on a strawman. > > The non-hypothetical example is that "Halting" is not decidable, as > there can not exist a machine that gets the right answer for every > possible machine given to it. > > What is a non-hypothetical example of something said not to exist? nononono, the undecidable machine *must* exist if halting cannot be fully decided upon ... > > Can you give me a non-hypothetical example of an even number greater > than 2 that is prime? > >> >>> >>> All algorithms need to fail for that form of input, which again, is a >>> DIFFERENT input for every claimed decider. >>> >>> We don't need to find a single input that all fail on, just that >>> every decider fails on at least one input, and the one they fail on >>> can be different for every decider. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since such a decider doesn't exist, we of course can't "describe" >>>>> it, except by point out its absence. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we can enumerate over all machines, and divide them into 3 >>>>> classes, >>>>> >>>>> Known to Halt, >>>>> Known to not Halt. >>>>> We don't know (possibly just yet) what they do. >>>>> >>>>> In that last class, there may be some that we can prove that with >>>>> more work we CAN determine if they will halt or not, but there will >>>>> be some which we can't (perhaps yet) determine if we can do that. >>>> >>>> well apparently that set will contain machines we *cannot* *ever* >>>> know, that we *cannot* *know* that we *cannot* *know*, so you can't >>>> even show me the form of the machine that is not mappable, ur just >>>> presuming it exists >>>> >>> >>> What "Set"? That is the problem, you can't construct that set by any >>> consistent set theory. >>> >>> You need to rely on "Naive" set theory to build your set, you end up >>> with inconsistant logic. >>> >>>>> >>>>> So, the set of machines which we can not know their behavior is not >>>>> a valid set to talk about except in a Naive Set theory, which will >>>>> itself be inconsistant. The fact you keep on harping about that set >>>>> says you don't understand the problem with it. >>>> >>>> this is computing theory bro, it's a lot more constrained a >>>> possibility space than set theory theory, set theory needs to >>>> encompass infinite sets of real numbers ... computing does not >>> >>> So? If you can't build the set, you can't use it in your arguement. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your logic seems to be based on trying to solve Russel's Teapot, which >>>> >>>> ur claiming there's certainly a fucking teapot out there that >>>> *can't* be found or else it wouldn't exist! >>> >>> Nope, my comment was that there might be a teapot out there, the >> >> MIGHT?!?! BRO, you claim there *MUST* be one ... holy shit bro > > No, where did I say that an undecidable machine must exist? > > I claim that no decider can get every input correct, and THAT is the > definition that makes the problem uncomputable. THEREFORE some machines must exist that said decider cannot decide upon: the "undecidable" machines, that can't look anything like the hypothetical machines in undecidability proofs that don't actually exist??? > > I point out that this seems to imply that there likely is some machine > that we can't know if it halts or not, and an implication of that > unknowability is that that machine (if it exists) must not halt. > you only speculate it must exist, but the speculation goes so far as to claim that speculation is the best we can do, that we cannot even specifically know what form of machine it is ... or ur whole freaking theory here falls apart >> >> ur not operating on speculation, u are proposing there exists a *hard* >> and *certain* but *unknowable* teapot that would cease to exist if it >> were ever found... > > Nope, I don't need the "teapot" to exist for Halting to not be computab;le. yeah u do: if a decider cannot handle ever input, then there must exist the input that the decider cannot handle u are asserting that the teapot *must* exist, and go so far as to claim that even if we can look at it (which we can, because we can enumerate all machines, err "teapots"), we just can't know that the teapot is the specific teapot we're looking for > >> >> and ignore the fact we can certainly enumerate over it. we can infact >> write this teapot down, we apparently just can't know the teapot is >> the teapot we're looking for > > Ok, then what even number greater than 2 can not be written as the sum > of two primes? > >> >> the state of computing theory is mind numbingly ghastly > > Nope, your understanding of it is. i don't buy into claims of fundamentally unknowable ghosts that *must* exist bro > >> >>> unknowable machine. I don't need the unknowable machine to prove >>> undecidability. >>> >>> It seems you are just stuck looking at the case that I point out >>> might exists, and just ignore the fact that you keep on misusing the >>> terminology. >>> >>>> >>>>> is just a logic error. It just shows that there are things whose >>>>> existance / non-existence just are not practically knowable. >>>> >>> >> > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 22:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <GyMZQ.42204$aeF6.4919@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #137391 |
On 12/8/25 10:06 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 12/8/25 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/8/25 8:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 12/8/25 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/8/25 2:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 12/8/25 4:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/25 11:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/25 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because Turing PROVED that the Halting Problem can't be >>>>>>>> computed, thus, the limit exists. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We may not be able to precisely define the line betweem >>>>>>>> computable and non-computable (or decidable vs non-decidable), >>>>>>>> but we know it exists as we have things know to be on both sides. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have a number of general propositions that have been proven >>>>>>>> to be uncomputable/undecidable, like the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When we narrow the question to a specific machine, that machine >>>>>>>> can fall into 3 camps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Known to Halt. >>>>>>>> Known to Never Halt. >>>>>>>> Unknown in behavior (but we know it will either halt of not). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question of knowABILITY is tougher, as it is easy to prove >>>>>>>> we know an answer (if we do) as knowing the answer shows it is >>>>>>>> knowable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Showing that some things might be knowable but not currently >>>>>>>> know is possible, but that does NOT mean we can answer the >>>>>>>> knowability question for all things that are knowable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why are you so stuck in the fact that between the domain of the >>>>>>>> decidable and the undeciable there is a band of "we don't know" >>>>>>>> that might contain some things that "we can't know". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is part of the problem of working in infinite spaces, you >>>>>>>> can always end up with a piece you don't know about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> u put urself in a mathematical jam, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> can't actually show me what one of these apparently non-halting >>>>>>> machines with "unknown" behavior actually looks like because then >>>>>>> ur theory falls apart, despite the fact we can in fact emuerate >>>>>>> over all machines ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so idk wtf u think u'r actually talking about there buddy >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But I don't need to talk about machines with unknowable results, >>>>>> as they aren't the topic of the problem. >>>>> >>>>> ... what??? the halting problem is literally ur proof they exist, >>>>> how are they not the topic??? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. It seems you don't understand the words I am using. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems you are stuck in a Naive Set Theory system that insists >>>>>> on having Sets based on just a description of them. >>>>> >>>>> and ur stuck on believing in machine ghosts >>>> >>>> Nope, I believe your ghosts exist, but they are not the based of the >>>> actual proof. >>>> >>>> Which is that a "Correct Halt Decider" is the ghost, as we can show >>>> the existance of an input (that varies based on the decider we are >>>> talking about) that it will get wrong. >>> >>> after which u declare that problem to not actually exist and defeat >>> ur own proof's meaning, >> >> I never said the PROBLEM doesn't exist, just that no decider can >> correctly answer the problem for all inputs. >> >> Maybe you don't understand the nature of problems and answers. >> >>> >>> and try to make up for this by supposing (but not actually >>> demonstrating) that there must be instead some ghost machines that >>> look nothing like the paradoxes you construct (because those *cant* >>> exist), but if we could point to or describe specifically in any way, >>> that would also self-defeat their existence! >> >> Where did I use these ghost machines? >> >> >> >>> >>> my god the kind of shit the theory of computing has been blowing up >>> their asshole for the past century: >> >> The only shit is what is in your head, not understand what is being said. >> >>> >>> wanking on about unknowable, yet non-halting ghost machines none can >>> ever discover lest their theory unravel into a puff of irreconcilable >>> smoke! >> >> it seems you are stuck in your ghosts >> >>> >>> imagine believing in limitations that can't even be known! >> >> Why do you say that? >> >> The limitation is well know, that the halting function can not be >> computed. >> >> This means that EVERY attempt to compute it will give some wrong answers. >> >> That doesn't mean there needs to be a specific input that we can't >> know its halting, even if that might be an implication of that fact. >> >> For the proposition, the existance of such a machine isn't important. >> >> It seems you have a problem with "abstract" concepts, like having to >> look at the answers for ALL inputs for the decider to meet the >> requirements. >> >> Note, very specifically, for a given machine, there ALWAYS is a >> machine that correctly answer for it, we just might not know which >> machine it is that gives the answer. The the problem of Halting for >> just a specific machine is not uncomputable, even if we don't know the >> answer, all that means is we can't tell which machines were right and >> which were wrong. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What I am talking about is that we can prove that there can not >>>>>> exist of a finite algorithm that will always tell if any finite >>>>>> algorithn it is given the full description of will reach an answer >>>>>> or not. >>>>> >>>>> but u can't give me a what logical structure a finite algorithm >>>>> would provably fail in, because all the hypothetical failures >>>>> demonstrated in undecidability proofs *DO NOT EXIST* >>>> >>>> Sure, for any finite halt decision algorithm, to decide on an >>>> algorithm that uses that algorithm, and then does the opposite. >>> >>> i asked for a non-hypothetical example that actually exists >> >> Of what? >> >> It seems you are stuck on a strawman. >> >> The non-hypothetical example is that "Halting" is not decidable, as >> there can not exist a machine that gets the right answer for every >> possible machine given to it. >> >> What is a non-hypothetical example of something said not to exist? > > nononono, the undecidable machine *must* exist if halting cannot be > fully decided upon ... > >> >> Can you give me a non-hypothetical example of an even number greater >> than 2 that is prime? >> >>> >>>> >>>> All algorithms need to fail for that form of input, which again, is >>>> a DIFFERENT input for every claimed decider. >>>> >>>> We don't need to find a single input that all fail on, just that >>>> every decider fails on at least one input, and the one they fail on >>>> can be different for every decider. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since such a decider doesn't exist, we of course can't "describe" >>>>>> it, except by point out its absence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, we can enumerate over all machines, and divide them into 3 >>>>>> classes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Known to Halt, >>>>>> Known to not Halt. >>>>>> We don't know (possibly just yet) what they do. >>>>>> >>>>>> In that last class, there may be some that we can prove that with >>>>>> more work we CAN determine if they will halt or not, but there >>>>>> will be some which we can't (perhaps yet) determine if we can do >>>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> well apparently that set will contain machines we *cannot* *ever* >>>>> know, that we *cannot* *know* that we *cannot* *know*, so you can't >>>>> even show me the form of the machine that is not mappable, ur just >>>>> presuming it exists >>>>> >>>> >>>> What "Set"? That is the problem, you can't construct that set by any >>>> consistent set theory. >>>> >>>> You need to rely on "Naive" set theory to build your set, you end up >>>> with inconsistant logic. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, the set of machines which we can not know their behavior is >>>>>> not a valid set to talk about except in a Naive Set theory, which >>>>>> will itself be inconsistant. The fact you keep on harping about >>>>>> that set says you don't understand the problem with it. >>>>> >>>>> this is computing theory bro, it's a lot more constrained a >>>>> possibility space than set theory theory, set theory needs to >>>>> encompass infinite sets of real numbers ... computing does not >>>> >>>> So? If you can't build the set, you can't use it in your arguement. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your logic seems to be based on trying to solve Russel's Teapot, >>>>>> which >>>>> >>>>> ur claiming there's certainly a fucking teapot out there that >>>>> *can't* be found or else it wouldn't exist! >>>> >>>> Nope, my comment was that there might be a teapot out there, the >>> >>> MIGHT?!?! BRO, you claim there *MUST* be one ... holy shit bro >> >> No, where did I say that an undecidable machine must exist? >> >> I claim that no decider can get every input correct, and THAT is the >> definition that makes the problem uncomputable. > > THEREFORE some machines must exist that said decider cannot decide upon: > > the "undecidable" machines, > Nope, because nothing says that machine can't be decider by other machines. > that can't look anything like the hypothetical machines in > undecidability proofs that don't actually exist??? Nope, THAT decider didn't give the correct answer, not that NO machine cna give the correct answer. You seem to have a fundamental problem with qualifiers. > >> >> I point out that this seems to imply that there likely is some machine >> that we can't know if it halts or not, and an implication of that >> unknowability is that that machine (if it exists) must not halt. >> > > you only speculate it must exist, but the speculation goes so far as to > claim that speculation is the best we can do, that we cannot even > specifically know what form of machine it is ... or ur whole freaking > theory here falls apart No, for a given machine, we have the recipe to build the input that it will get wrong. Thus, for any existing machine you want to claim to be a prospective halt decider, I can show an input that it gets wrong. > >>> >>> ur not operating on speculation, u are proposing there exists a >>> *hard* and *certain* but *unknowable* teapot that would cease to >>> exist if it were ever found... >> >> Nope, I don't need the "teapot" to exist for Halting to not be >> computab;le. > > yeah u do: if a decider cannot handle ever input, then there must exist > the input that the decider cannot handle No I don't, as I can provide a physically demonstratable input for ANY machine you want to put forward. I don't need to find that elusive unknowable machine. > > u are asserting that the teapot *must* exist, and go so far as to claim > that even if we can look at it (which we can, because we can enumerate > all machines, err "teapots"), we just can't know that the teapot is the > specific teapot we're looking for > That the teapot must exist is a RESULT of the fact that we can show that the problem is uncomputable. If we had an algorithm that allowed us to KNOW the behavior of every machine, then we could make the input on whatever that algorithm that we used to know about machines, and that algorithm would be wrong about that machine. >> >>> >>> and ignore the fact we can certainly enumerate over it. we can infact >>> write this teapot down, we apparently just can't know the teapot is >>> the teapot we're looking for >> >> Ok, then what even number greater than 2 can not be written as the sum >> of two primes? >> >>> >>> the state of computing theory is mind numbingly ghastly >> >> Nope, your understanding of it is. > > i don't buy into claims of fundamentally unknowable ghosts that *must* > exist bro That is your problem. What can you PROVE about it? How do you handle the fact that you can't make a correct decider for ALL inputs? How can you KNOW the answer, if you can't make an algorithm to tell you? Your problem is you don't understand how knowledge comes about. Knowledge comes form things that are computable/provable. The fact we can show that some things can not be computed/proven means that some things can not be known. One of the problems is that while we can know what we know, we can't tell out of what we don't know can't be known, and which might eventually become known. You seem to want to lable this lack of knowledge a "ghost", when it is just reality. > >> >>> >>>> unknowable machine. I don't need the unknowable machine to prove >>>> undecidability. >>>> >>>> It seems you are just stuck looking at the case that I point out >>>> might exists, and just ignore the fact that you keep on misusing the >>>> terminology. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> is just a logic error. It just shows that there are things whose >>>>>> existance / non-existence just are not practically knowable. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 19:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <10h85k2$gh76$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137393 |
On 12/8/25 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 10:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 12/8/25 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/8/25 8:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 12/8/25 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/8/25 2:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 12/8/25 4:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/25 11:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/7/25 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because Turing PROVED that the Halting Problem can't be >>>>>>>>> computed, thus, the limit exists. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We may not be able to precisely define the line betweem >>>>>>>>> computable and non-computable (or decidable vs non-decidable), >>>>>>>>> but we know it exists as we have things know to be on both sides. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have a number of general propositions that have been proven >>>>>>>>> to be uncomputable/undecidable, like the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When we narrow the question to a specific machine, that machine >>>>>>>>> can fall into 3 camps. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Known to Halt. >>>>>>>>> Known to Never Halt. >>>>>>>>> Unknown in behavior (but we know it will either halt of not). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The question of knowABILITY is tougher, as it is easy to prove >>>>>>>>> we know an answer (if we do) as knowing the answer shows it is >>>>>>>>> knowable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Showing that some things might be knowable but not currently >>>>>>>>> know is possible, but that does NOT mean we can answer the >>>>>>>>> knowability question for all things that are knowable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why are you so stuck in the fact that between the domain of the >>>>>>>>> decidable and the undeciable there is a band of "we don't know" >>>>>>>>> that might contain some things that "we can't know". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is part of the problem of working in infinite spaces, you >>>>>>>>> can always end up with a piece you don't know about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> u put urself in a mathematical jam, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> can't actually show me what one of these apparently non-halting >>>>>>>> machines with "unknown" behavior actually looks like because >>>>>>>> then ur theory falls apart, despite the fact we can in fact >>>>>>>> emuerate over all machines ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so idk wtf u think u'r actually talking about there buddy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I don't need to talk about machines with unknowable results, >>>>>>> as they aren't the topic of the problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... what??? the halting problem is literally ur proof they exist, >>>>>> how are they not the topic??? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. It seems you don't understand the words I am using. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems you are stuck in a Naive Set Theory system that insists >>>>>>> on having Sets based on just a description of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> and ur stuck on believing in machine ghosts >>>>> >>>>> Nope, I believe your ghosts exist, but they are not the based of >>>>> the actual proof. >>>>> >>>>> Which is that a "Correct Halt Decider" is the ghost, as we can show >>>>> the existance of an input (that varies based on the decider we are >>>>> talking about) that it will get wrong. >>>> >>>> after which u declare that problem to not actually exist and defeat >>>> ur own proof's meaning, >>> >>> I never said the PROBLEM doesn't exist, just that no decider can >>> correctly answer the problem for all inputs. >>> >>> Maybe you don't understand the nature of problems and answers. >>> >>>> >>>> and try to make up for this by supposing (but not actually >>>> demonstrating) that there must be instead some ghost machines that >>>> look nothing like the paradoxes you construct (because those *cant* >>>> exist), but if we could point to or describe specifically in any >>>> way, that would also self-defeat their existence! >>> >>> Where did I use these ghost machines? >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> my god the kind of shit the theory of computing has been blowing up >>>> their asshole for the past century: >>> >>> The only shit is what is in your head, not understand what is being >>> said. >>> >>>> >>>> wanking on about unknowable, yet non-halting ghost machines none can >>>> ever discover lest their theory unravel into a puff of >>>> irreconcilable smoke! >>> >>> it seems you are stuck in your ghosts >>> >>>> >>>> imagine believing in limitations that can't even be known! >>> >>> Why do you say that? >>> >>> The limitation is well know, that the halting function can not be >>> computed. >>> >>> This means that EVERY attempt to compute it will give some wrong >>> answers. >>> >>> That doesn't mean there needs to be a specific input that we can't >>> know its halting, even if that might be an implication of that fact. >>> >>> For the proposition, the existance of such a machine isn't important. >>> >>> It seems you have a problem with "abstract" concepts, like having to >>> look at the answers for ALL inputs for the decider to meet the >>> requirements. >>> >>> Note, very specifically, for a given machine, there ALWAYS is a >>> machine that correctly answer for it, we just might not know which >>> machine it is that gives the answer. The the problem of Halting for >>> just a specific machine is not uncomputable, even if we don't know >>> the answer, all that means is we can't tell which machines were right >>> and which were wrong. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I am talking about is that we can prove that there can not >>>>>>> exist of a finite algorithm that will always tell if any finite >>>>>>> algorithn it is given the full description of will reach an >>>>>>> answer or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> but u can't give me a what logical structure a finite algorithm >>>>>> would provably fail in, because all the hypothetical failures >>>>>> demonstrated in undecidability proofs *DO NOT EXIST* >>>>> >>>>> Sure, for any finite halt decision algorithm, to decide on an >>>>> algorithm that uses that algorithm, and then does the opposite. >>>> >>>> i asked for a non-hypothetical example that actually exists >>> >>> Of what? >>> >>> It seems you are stuck on a strawman. >>> >>> The non-hypothetical example is that "Halting" is not decidable, as >>> there can not exist a machine that gets the right answer for every >>> possible machine given to it. >>> >>> What is a non-hypothetical example of something said not to exist? >> >> nononono, the undecidable machine *must* exist if halting cannot be >> fully decided upon ... >> >>> >>> Can you give me a non-hypothetical example of an even number greater >>> than 2 that is prime? >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> All algorithms need to fail for that form of input, which again, is >>>>> a DIFFERENT input for every claimed decider. >>>>> >>>>> We don't need to find a single input that all fail on, just that >>>>> every decider fails on at least one input, and the one they fail on >>>>> can be different for every decider. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since such a decider doesn't exist, we of course can't "describe" >>>>>>> it, except by point out its absence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, we can enumerate over all machines, and divide them into 3 >>>>>>> classes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Known to Halt, >>>>>>> Known to not Halt. >>>>>>> We don't know (possibly just yet) what they do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In that last class, there may be some that we can prove that with >>>>>>> more work we CAN determine if they will halt or not, but there >>>>>>> will be some which we can't (perhaps yet) determine if we can do >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> well apparently that set will contain machines we *cannot* *ever* >>>>>> know, that we *cannot* *know* that we *cannot* *know*, so you >>>>>> can't even show me the form of the machine that is not mappable, >>>>>> ur just presuming it exists >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What "Set"? That is the problem, you can't construct that set by >>>>> any consistent set theory. >>>>> >>>>> You need to rely on "Naive" set theory to build your set, you end >>>>> up with inconsistant logic. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, the set of machines which we can not know their behavior is >>>>>>> not a valid set to talk about except in a Naive Set theory, which >>>>>>> will itself be inconsistant. The fact you keep on harping about >>>>>>> that set says you don't understand the problem with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> this is computing theory bro, it's a lot more constrained a >>>>>> possibility space than set theory theory, set theory needs to >>>>>> encompass infinite sets of real numbers ... computing does not >>>>> >>>>> So? If you can't build the set, you can't use it in your arguement. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your logic seems to be based on trying to solve Russel's Teapot, >>>>>>> which >>>>>> >>>>>> ur claiming there's certainly a fucking teapot out there that >>>>>> *can't* be found or else it wouldn't exist! >>>>> >>>>> Nope, my comment was that there might be a teapot out there, the >>>> >>>> MIGHT?!?! BRO, you claim there *MUST* be one ... holy shit bro >>> >>> No, where did I say that an undecidable machine must exist? >>> >>> I claim that no decider can get every input correct, and THAT is the >>> definition that makes the problem uncomputable. >> >> THEREFORE some machines must exist that said decider cannot decide upon: >> >> the "undecidable" machines, >> > > Nope, because nothing says that machine can't be decider by other machines. that's also just fucking speculation on ur part since you can't even point to this machine which cannot be decided by one partial decider, but can be by another > >> that can't look anything like the hypothetical machines in >> undecidability proofs that don't actually exist??? > > Nope, THAT decider didn't give the correct answer, not that NO machine > cna give the correct answer. when it comes to hypothesized undecidable proofs ... no machine can correctly decide: und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever(), not just halts() so know ur just fucking cherry-picking behavior randomly without proof or a system to justify it because it suits the world view u've been taught for this point in the discussion and ur feel confident to not justify anything with specifics... because if u could actually point to *real* examples of machines that cannot be decided, then ur fucking theory fucking falls apart holy fuck, i can't believe this kinda trash is the consensus > > You seem to have a fundamental problem with qualifiers. cut that gaslighting shit out bro > >> >>> >>> I point out that this seems to imply that there likely is some >>> machine that we can't know if it halts or not, and an implication of >>> that unknowability is that that machine (if it exists) must not halt. >>> >> >> you only speculate it must exist, but the speculation goes so far as >> to claim that speculation is the best we can do, that we cannot even >> specifically know what form of machine it is ... or ur whole freaking >> theory here falls apart > > No, for a given machine, we have the recipe to build the input that it > will get wrong. but none of fucking hypotheticals actually exist!!! what about deciding on *only* machines that actually exist??? i'm imaging u asking next: "how do you limit the input to only machines that exist???" like, WHAT IN THE FUCK!??? only machines that exist in the full enumeration, actually exist! > > Thus, for any existing machine you want to claim to be a prospective > halt decider, I can show an input that it gets wrong. > >> >>>> >>>> ur not operating on speculation, u are proposing there exists a >>>> *hard* and *certain* but *unknowable* teapot that would cease to >>>> exist if it were ever found... >>> >>> Nope, I don't need the "teapot" to exist for Halting to not be >>> computab;le. >> >> yeah u do: if a decider cannot handle ever input, then there must >> exist the input that the decider cannot handle > > No I don't, as I can provide a physically demonstratable input for ANY > machine you want to put forward. > > I don't need to find that elusive unknowable machine. u just need to speculate endlessly about it and assert it's truth, because ur so convinced that ur broken ass theory of computing is coherent > > >> >> u are asserting that the teapot *must* exist, and go so far as to >> claim that even if we can look at it (which we can, because we can >> enumerate all machines, err "teapots"), we just can't know that the >> teapot is the specific teapot we're looking for >> > > That the teapot must exist is a RESULT of the fact that we can show that > the problem is uncomputable. If we had an algorithm that allowed us to > KNOW the behavior of every machine, then we could make the input on > whatever that algorithm that we used to know about machines, and that > algorithm would be wrong about that machine. or maybe theory is just broken instead of fixing it, u shoved it under a fucking rug for the last century in fear of machines that you do nothing more than speculate about > >>> >>>> >>>> and ignore the fact we can certainly enumerate over it. we can >>>> infact write this teapot down, we apparently just can't know the >>>> teapot is the teapot we're looking for >>> >>> Ok, then what even number greater than 2 can not be written as the >>> sum of two primes? >>> >>>> >>>> the state of computing theory is mind numbingly ghastly >>> >>> Nope, your understanding of it is. >> >> i don't buy into claims of fundamentally unknowable ghosts that *must* >> exist bro > > That is your problem. > > What can you PROVE about it? > > How do you handle the fact that you can't make a correct decider for ALL > inputs? > > How can you KNOW the answer, if you can't make an algorithm to tell you? > > Your problem is you don't understand how knowledge comes about. > Knowledge comes form things that are computable/provable. The fact we > can show that some things can not be computed/proven means that some > things can not be known. > > One of the problems is that while we can know what we know, we can't > tell out of what we don't know can't be known, and which might > eventually become known. You seem to want to lable this lack of > knowledge a "ghost", when it is just reality. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> unknowable machine. I don't need the unknowable machine to prove >>>>> undecidability. >>>>> >>>>> It seems you are just stuck looking at the case that I point out >>>>> might exists, and just ignore the fact that you keep on misusing >>>>> the terminology. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> is just a logic error. It just shows that there are things whose >>>>>>> existance / non-existence just are not practically knowable. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 22:00 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <10h86ti$1c1r3$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #137395 |
On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: *You have support for this in high places* The Halting Paradox Bill Stoddart 6 Conclusions The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <gsNZQ.1882$C_K8.1293@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #137397 |
On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: > > *You have support for this in high places* > > The Halting Paradox > Bill Stoddart > > 6 Conclusions > The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, > but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. > It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. > Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 > Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification for the test. The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 22:33 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <10h88qc$1c2nb$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #137400 |
On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >> >> *You have support for this in high places* >> >> The Halting Paradox >> Bill Stoddart >> >> 6 Conclusions >> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >> >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >> > > Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification for > the test. > > The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. > He and Eric have been PhD computer science professors for decades. Of course that by itself means that they must be woefully less than your own infallibility. > Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing > Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding > for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete systems. That has nothing to do with foundations. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <TOUZQ.21383$URL8.13132@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #137402 |
On 12/8/25 11:33 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >>> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> >>> *You have support for this in high places* >>> >>> The Halting Paradox >>> Bill Stoddart >>> >>> 6 Conclusions >>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >>> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >>> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >>> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >>> >>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >>> >> >> Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification >> for the test. >> >> The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. >> > > He and Eric have been PhD computer science professors > for decades. Of course that by itself means that > they must be woefully less than your own infallibility. So? Appeal to Authority is just a FALICY. The fact this is you full arguement just show the error in your logic. > >> Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing >> Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding >> for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete >> systems. > > That has nothing to do with foundations. > Sure it does. His decider check if the input uses it. That is based on the decider being able to detect that usage. Since there is no unique value to test, the test can't be done. Your logic is based on assuming you can make assumptions about things that are not true, and thus your logic is based on falsehoods being true, and thus shows it is just unsound, as are you. Sorry, all you are doing is showing how bad your logic abilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 09:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <10h9gl8$1cu63$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #137408 |
On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 11:33 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> >>>> *You have support for this in high places* >>>> >>>> The Halting Paradox >>>> Bill Stoddart >>>> >>>> 6 Conclusions >>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >>>> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >>>> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >>>> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >>>> >>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >>>> >>> >>> Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification >>> for the test. >>> >>> The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. >>> >> >> He and Eric have been PhD computer science professors >> for decades. Of course that by itself means that >> they must be woefully less than your own infallibility. > > So? > > Appeal to Authority is just a FALICY. > > The fact this is you full arguement just show the error in your logic. > He and Eric just understand these things better than you and you lack of understanding is not a rebuttal. I honestly believe that you are capable of understanding these very difficult things if you merely give up your insistence on remaining in rebuttal mode. It has take me more than 21 years to finally get clear and correct words that are consistent with standard definitions. For my first fifteen years I only had strongly held intuitions and had to overload terms of the art with different meanings because there were no exiting terms that conveyed the meanings that I needed to convey. >> >>> Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing >>> Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding >>> for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete >>> systems. >> >> That has nothing to do with foundations. >> > > Sure it does. > > His decider check if the input uses it. That is based on the decider > being able to detect that usage. Since there is no unique value to test, > the test can't be done. > For the conventional halting problem proof there is a unique value. That the proof can be adapted is off-topic. We must make one point at a time with no leaping to conclusions. > Your logic is based on assuming you can make assumptions about things > that are not true, and thus your logic is based on falsehoods being > true, and thus shows it is just unsound, as are you. > > Sorry, all you are doing is showing how bad your logic abilities. That I understand these things at deeper philosophical levels is not any lack of understanding on my part. I am merely having the same problem as Ludwig Wittgenstein in that mathematicians and logicians are rigid-minded and utterly unwilling to reexamine philosophical foundations. -- 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 | 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <Ih6_Q.1315$_Sad.590@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #137413 |
On 12/9/25 10:53 AM, polcott wrote: > On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/8/25 11:33 PM, polcott wrote: >>> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *You have support for this in high places* >>>>> >>>>> The Halting Paradox >>>>> Bill Stoddart >>>>> >>>>> 6 Conclusions >>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >>>>> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >>>>> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >>>>> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >>>>> >>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification >>>> for the test. >>>> >>>> The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. >>>> >>> >>> He and Eric have been PhD computer science professors >>> for decades. Of course that by itself means that >>> they must be woefully less than your own infallibility. >> >> So? >> >> Appeal to Authority is just a FALICY. >> >> The fact this is you full arguement just show the error in your logic. >> > > He and Eric just understand these things better > than you and you lack of understanding is not > a rebuttal. I honestly believe that you are > capable of understanding these very difficult > things if you merely give up your insistence > on remaining in rebuttal mode. Nope, he just shows he has the same ignorance (that you have admitted to) about what Computation Theory is about. > > It has take me more than 21 years to finally get > clear and correct words that are consistent with > standard definitions. For my first fifteen years > I only had strongly held intuitions and had to > overload terms of the art with different meanings > because there were no exiting terms that conveyed > the meanings that I needed to convey. Nope, you have wasted 21 years to try to create a better sounding LIE. The problem is you don't actually know what anything you say actually means in the theory you claim to be working on, because you have admitted you keep yourself ignorant of the actual facts. > >>> >>>> Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing >>>> Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE >>>> encoding for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing >>>> Complete systems. >>> >>> That has nothing to do with foundations. >>> >> >> Sure it does. >> >> His decider check if the input uses it. That is based on the decider >> being able to detect that usage. Since there is no unique value to >> test, the test can't be done. >> > > For the conventional halting problem proof there > is a unique value. That the proof can be adapted > is off-topic. We must make one point at a time > with no leaping to conclusions. Nope. Just shows your ignorance. It is computationally IMPOSSIBLE for H to universally detect that the machine H^ that it has been give is using a copy of itself. Your problem is that in your ignorance, you created a bad representation system that only handles less than Turing Complete systems, and even admit to a condition that proves this fact. > >> Your logic is based on assuming you can make assumptions about things >> that are not true, and thus your logic is based on falsehoods being >> true, and thus shows it is just unsound, as are you. >> >> Sorry, all you are doing is showing how bad your logic abilities. > > That I understand these things at deeper philosophical > levels is not any lack of understanding on my part. I > am merely having the same problem as Ludwig Wittgenstein > in that mathematicians and logicians are rigid-minded > and utterly unwilling to reexamine philosophical foundations. > Nope, you just prove Dunning-Kruger because you THINK you understand something you are just totally ignorant of. You have proved this many times, as your world is based on hopeful proclamations with no factual basis behind them, because you just don't understand what Truth actually is. Mathematic and Logic *IS* "rigid-minded" as it has actual rules. A concept foreign to you, which is why you can't actually understand anything in them. As has been pointed out many times, if you want create a totally new system, go ahead a do it, just be clear that is what you are doing, and thus nothing you say has any impact on the systems you left behind. Your problem is, you refuse to leave the system behind, because you KNOW (maybe just subconsiously) that they usefully and validly point out things you don't want to admit. Your problem is your mind can only handle trivially small logic system, so all you are trying to do is define "logic" to only handle those trivially small sets where incompleteness doesn't occur/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 22:51 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <10h89sq$1c3ec$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #137400 |
On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >> >> *You have support for this in high places* >> >> The Halting Paradox >> Bill Stoddart >> >> 6 Conclusions >> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >> >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >> > > Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification for > the test. > > The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. > > Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing > Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding > for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete systems. With the text of each program P we associate a unique number ⌈P⌉, known as the program’s encoding, which will stand for the program when we want to use that program as data, e.g. when passing one program to another as an argument. You are just terribly inaccurate in paraphrasing. Perhaps speaking to no one at all is better than talking to you. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <ROUZQ.21382$URL8.14899@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #137403 |
On 12/8/25 11:51 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >>> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> >>> *You have support for this in high places* >>> >>> The Halting Paradox >>> Bill Stoddart >>> >>> 6 Conclusions >>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >>> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >>> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >>> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >>> >>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >>> >> >> Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification >> for the test. >> >> The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. >> >> Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing >> Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding >> for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete >> systems. > > With the text of each program P we associate a > unique number ⌈P⌉, known as the program’s encoding, > which will stand for the program when we want to > use that program as data, e.g. when passing one > program to another as an argument. > > You are just terribly inaccurate in paraphrasing. > Perhaps speaking to no one at all is better than > talking to you. > Except there are many texts that create the equivalent program, and thus many numbers for that program. Yes, we can convert a program into data, but there are many data values that all represent the same program. This means that Program H can't use a "unique" value of its representation to detect the input using it, as the pathological program can just use an equivalent variation not in the finite list of values that H tests for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 09:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <10h9fs7$1ctin$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #137407 |
On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 11:51 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> >>>> *You have support for this in high places* >>>> >>>> The Halting Paradox >>>> Bill Stoddart >>>> >>>> 6 Conclusions >>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >>>> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >>>> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >>>> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >>>> >>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >>>> >>> >>> Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification >>> for the test. >>> >>> The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. >>> >>> Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing >>> Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding >>> for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete >>> systems. >> >> With the text of each program P we associate a >> unique number ⌈P⌉, known as the program’s encoding, >> which will stand for the program when we want to >> use that program as data, e.g. when passing one >> program to another as an argument. >> >> You are just terribly inaccurate in paraphrasing. >> Perhaps speaking to no one at all is better than >> talking to you. >> > > Except there are many texts that create the equivalent program, and thus > many numbers for that program. > He is doing this like Gödel numbers, thus a unique identifier is needed. And again this is merely nit-picky his point is that the foundations of computer science are incorrect and I have shown that two different ways. > Yes, we can convert a program into data, but there are many data values > that all represent the same program. > No there are not you are just not being precise enough in your choice of words. And yet again this is an irrelevant nit-picky detail. > This means that Program H can't use a "unique" value of its > representation to detect the input using it, as the pathological program > can just use an equivalent variation not in the finite list of values > that H tests for. If the finite strings are not identical then the inputs are not identical. -- 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 | 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <Lh6_Q.1316$_Sad.257@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #137412 |
On 12/9/25 10:39 AM, polcott wrote:
> On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/8/25 11:51 PM, polcott wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *You have support for this in high places*
>>>>>
>>>>> The Halting Paradox
>>>>> Bill Stoddart
>>>>>
>>>>> 6 Conclusions
>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable,
>>>>> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification.
>>>>> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object.
>>>>> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification
>>>> for the test.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing
>>>> Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE
>>>> encoding for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing
>>>> Complete systems.
>>>
>>> With the text of each program P we associate a
>>> unique number ⌈P⌉, known as the program’s encoding,
>>> which will stand for the program when we want to
>>> use that program as data, e.g. when passing one
>>> program to another as an argument.
>>>
>>> You are just terribly inaccurate in paraphrasing.
>>> Perhaps speaking to no one at all is better than
>>> talking to you.
>>>
>>
>> Except there are many texts that create the equivalent program, and
>> thus many numbers for that program.
>>
>
> He is doing this like Gödel numbers, thus a unique
> identifier is needed. And again this is merely nit-picky
> his point is that the foundations of computer science
> are incorrect and I have shown that two different ways.
Nope, doesn't work that way. A Godel number is just a way of converting
a logical sentence into a number. Since there are many ways to say the
same thing, and each variation would have a different Godel number, it
isn't unique.
Even the same sentence, if it introduces new definitions, can have
multiple Godel numbers, as every new definition creates an arbitraryness
that gives you multiple values.
This just highlights that you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
>> Yes, we can convert a program into data, but there are many data
>> values that all represent the same program.
>>
>
> No there are not you are just not being precise enough
> in your choice of words. And yet again this is an
> irrelevant nit-picky detail.
No, you ar just assuming the impossible. It isn't "picky", it is being
accurate, a concept you don't understand.
How many computationally equivalent version of your HHH program do you
think we can create?
>
>> This means that Program H can't use a "unique" value of its
>> representation to detect the input using it, as the pathological
>> program can just use an equivalent variation not in the finite list of
>> values that H tests for.
>
> If the finite strings are not identical then the
> inputs are not identical.
>
WHICH "finite string" of H are you lookiing at?
There is only one "input" in the problem, the representation of H^,
which include a copy of the computational equivalent of H.
do you not agree that these two are identical programs:
int foo(int x) {
return x+1;
}
and
int foo(int y) {
int x = y + 1;
return x;
}
Do they not compute the exact same value for all inputs?
Do the strings that represent the program exactly compate as equal?
How can you detect ALL possible variations of something like this.
Part of your problem is you don't understand that Compuations are based
on actual algorithms being executed, and they don't have a native
cononical representation.
Part of this is because you chose not to learn the details of what you
talk about, and thus your reckless-disregard for the truth has turned
you into a lying idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 20:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <10h8a23$j4fs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137397 |
On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: > > *You have support for this in high places* > > The Halting Paradox > Bill Stoddart > > 6 Conclusions > The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, > but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. > It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. > Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 > stoddart didn't want to discuss anything and i've been pissing off eric u saw the emails -- hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 23:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
| Message-ID | <10h8ags$1c3ji$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #137404 |
On 12/8/2025 10:54 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >> >> *You have support for this in high places* >> >> The Halting Paradox >> Bill Stoddart >> >> 6 Conclusions >> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >> >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >> > > stoddart didn't want to discuss anything and i've been pissing off eric > u saw the emails > None the less you can carefully examine his work and see how and where he affirms your position. Eric is happy with me. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 23:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <KkNZQ.1830$C_K8.1359@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #137395 |
On 12/8/25 10:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 12/8/25 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/8/25 10:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 12/8/25 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/25 8:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/25 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/25 2:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 4:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/25 11:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/25 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because Turing PROVED that the Halting Problem can't be
>>>>>>>>>> computed, thus, the limit exists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We may not be able to precisely define the line betweem
>>>>>>>>>> computable and non-computable (or decidable vs non-decidable),
>>>>>>>>>> but we know it exists as we have things know to be on both sides.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have a number of general propositions that have been proven
>>>>>>>>>> to be uncomputable/undecidable, like the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we narrow the question to a specific machine, that
>>>>>>>>>> machine can fall into 3 camps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Known to Halt.
>>>>>>>>>> Known to Never Halt.
>>>>>>>>>> Unknown in behavior (but we know it will either halt of not).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The question of knowABILITY is tougher, as it is easy to prove
>>>>>>>>>> we know an answer (if we do) as knowing the answer shows it is
>>>>>>>>>> knowable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Showing that some things might be knowable but not currently
>>>>>>>>>> know is possible, but that does NOT mean we can answer the
>>>>>>>>>> knowability question for all things that are knowable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so stuck in the fact that between the domain of
>>>>>>>>>> the decidable and the undeciable there is a band of "we don't
>>>>>>>>>> know" that might contain some things that "we can't know".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the problem of working in infinite spaces, you
>>>>>>>>>> can always end up with a piece you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> u put urself in a mathematical jam,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> can't actually show me what one of these apparently non-halting
>>>>>>>>> machines with "unknown" behavior actually looks like because
>>>>>>>>> then ur theory falls apart, despite the fact we can in fact
>>>>>>>>> emuerate over all machines ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so idk wtf u think u'r actually talking about there buddy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I don't need to talk about machines with unknowable results,
>>>>>>>> as they aren't the topic of the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... what??? the halting problem is literally ur proof they exist,
>>>>>>> how are they not the topic???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. It seems you don't understand the words I am using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems you are stuck in a Naive Set Theory system that insists
>>>>>>>> on having Sets based on just a description of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and ur stuck on believing in machine ghosts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I believe your ghosts exist, but they are not the based of
>>>>>> the actual proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is that a "Correct Halt Decider" is the ghost, as we can
>>>>>> show the existance of an input (that varies based on the decider
>>>>>> we are talking about) that it will get wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> after which u declare that problem to not actually exist and defeat
>>>>> ur own proof's meaning,
>>>>
>>>> I never said the PROBLEM doesn't exist, just that no decider can
>>>> correctly answer the problem for all inputs.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you don't understand the nature of problems and answers.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and try to make up for this by supposing (but not actually
>>>>> demonstrating) that there must be instead some ghost machines that
>>>>> look nothing like the paradoxes you construct (because those *cant*
>>>>> exist), but if we could point to or describe specifically in any
>>>>> way, that would also self-defeat their existence!
>>>>
>>>> Where did I use these ghost machines?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> my god the kind of shit the theory of computing has been blowing up
>>>>> their asshole for the past century:
>>>>
>>>> The only shit is what is in your head, not understand what is being
>>>> said.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wanking on about unknowable, yet non-halting ghost machines none
>>>>> can ever discover lest their theory unravel into a puff of
>>>>> irreconcilable smoke!
>>>>
>>>> it seems you are stuck in your ghosts
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> imagine believing in limitations that can't even be known!
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say that?
>>>>
>>>> The limitation is well know, that the halting function can not be
>>>> computed.
>>>>
>>>> This means that EVERY attempt to compute it will give some wrong
>>>> answers.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean there needs to be a specific input that we can't
>>>> know its halting, even if that might be an implication of that fact.
>>>>
>>>> For the proposition, the existance of such a machine isn't important.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you have a problem with "abstract" concepts, like having to
>>>> look at the answers for ALL inputs for the decider to meet the
>>>> requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Note, very specifically, for a given machine, there ALWAYS is a
>>>> machine that correctly answer for it, we just might not know which
>>>> machine it is that gives the answer. The the problem of Halting for
>>>> just a specific machine is not uncomputable, even if we don't know
>>>> the answer, all that means is we can't tell which machines were
>>>> right and which were wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I am talking about is that we can prove that there can not
>>>>>>>> exist of a finite algorithm that will always tell if any finite
>>>>>>>> algorithn it is given the full description of will reach an
>>>>>>>> answer or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but u can't give me a what logical structure a finite algorithm
>>>>>>> would provably fail in, because all the hypothetical failures
>>>>>>> demonstrated in undecidability proofs *DO NOT EXIST*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, for any finite halt decision algorithm, to decide on an
>>>>>> algorithm that uses that algorithm, and then does the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>> i asked for a non-hypothetical example that actually exists
>>>>
>>>> Of what?
>>>>
>>>> It seems you are stuck on a strawman.
>>>>
>>>> The non-hypothetical example is that "Halting" is not decidable, as
>>>> there can not exist a machine that gets the right answer for every
>>>> possible machine given to it.
>>>>
>>>> What is a non-hypothetical example of something said not to exist?
>>>
>>> nononono, the undecidable machine *must* exist if halting cannot be
>>> fully decided upon ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you give me a non-hypothetical example of an even number greater
>>>> than 2 that is prime?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All algorithms need to fail for that form of input, which again,
>>>>>> is a DIFFERENT input for every claimed decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't need to find a single input that all fail on, just that
>>>>>> every decider fails on at least one input, and the one they fail
>>>>>> on can be different for every decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since such a decider doesn't exist, we of course can't
>>>>>>>> "describe" it, except by point out its absence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we can enumerate over all machines, and divide them into 3
>>>>>>>> classes,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Known to Halt,
>>>>>>>> Known to not Halt.
>>>>>>>> We don't know (possibly just yet) what they do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that last class, there may be some that we can prove that
>>>>>>>> with more work we CAN determine if they will halt or not, but
>>>>>>>> there will be some which we can't (perhaps yet) determine if we
>>>>>>>> can do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well apparently that set will contain machines we *cannot* *ever*
>>>>>>> know, that we *cannot* *know* that we *cannot* *know*, so you
>>>>>>> can't even show me the form of the machine that is not mappable,
>>>>>>> ur just presuming it exists
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "Set"? That is the problem, you can't construct that set by
>>>>>> any consistent set theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to rely on "Naive" set theory to build your set, you end
>>>>>> up with inconsistant logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, the set of machines which we can not know their behavior is
>>>>>>>> not a valid set to talk about except in a Naive Set theory,
>>>>>>>> which will itself be inconsistant. The fact you keep on harping
>>>>>>>> about that set says you don't understand the problem with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is computing theory bro, it's a lot more constrained a
>>>>>>> possibility space than set theory theory, set theory needs to
>>>>>>> encompass infinite sets of real numbers ... computing does not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? If you can't build the set, you can't use it in your arguement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your logic seems to be based on trying to solve Russel's Teapot,
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ur claiming there's certainly a fucking teapot out there that
>>>>>>> *can't* be found or else it wouldn't exist!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, my comment was that there might be a teapot out there, the
>>>>>
>>>>> MIGHT?!?! BRO, you claim there *MUST* be one ... holy shit bro
>>>>
>>>> No, where did I say that an undecidable machine must exist?
>>>>
>>>> I claim that no decider can get every input correct, and THAT is the
>>>> definition that makes the problem uncomputable.
>>>
>>> THEREFORE some machines must exist that said decider cannot decide upon:
>>>
>>> the "undecidable" machines,
>>>
>>
>> Nope, because nothing says that machine can't be decider by other
>> machines.
>
> that's also just fucking speculation on ur part since you can't even
> point to this machine which cannot be decided by one partial decider,
> but can be by another
???
Given Machine H is chosen as one partial decider then the machine:
H^(d): if H(d, d) returns halting, loop forever
else halt.
Then H^(H^) will show that H was wrong for H(H^, H^)
How is that not showing the machine which that machine can not decider.
It seems you are stuck on your strawman with confused qualification that
NO machine can decide that input correctly, but that isn't the claim,
only that this particular one doesn't.
The fact that I can ALWAYS make such a machine for ANY decider you may
want to create means that:
For ALL deciders H, there exist an input H^ that that particual H gets
wrong.
THus, but the logic of qualifies, this means that there does not exist
any H that gets the correct answer for all inputs.
>
>>
>>> that can't look anything like the hypothetical machines in
>>> undecidability proofs that don't actually exist???
>>
>> Nope, THAT decider didn't give the correct answer, not that NO machine
>> cna give the correct answer.
>
> when it comes to hypothesized undecidable proofs ... no machine can
> correctly decide:
>
> und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever(), not just halts()
Note, this und isn't a machine until a particular Halts is chosen, and
DOES show that any prospecive Halt Decider can't be an always correct
halt decider.
Thus, you yourself just showed the input for the GIVEN decider "halts"
>
> so know ur just fucking cherry-picking behavior randomly without proof
> or a system to justify it because it suits the world view u've been
> taught for this point in the discussion
No, we know your brain is just mush, as you just demonstrated the point
you claimed couldn't be shown.
>
> and ur feel confident to not justify anything with specifics... because
> if u could actually point to *real* examples of machines that cannot be
> decided, then ur fucking theory fucking falls apart
And what isn't specific about your "und" template.
Note, you err in calling it a machine, as it isn't a machine until
paired with a particular "halts" decider.
>
> holy fuck, i can't believe this kinda trash is the consensus
Yes, I can't believe how you keep on repeating your error of not knowing
what you are talking about,
>
>>
>> You seem to have a fundamental problem with qualifiers.
>
> cut that gaslighting shit out bro
What gaslighting?
You just proved the point you said couldn't be shown, but you can't
recognize it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I point out that this seems to imply that there likely is some
>>>> machine that we can't know if it halts or not, and an implication of
>>>> that unknowability is that that machine (if it exists) must not halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you only speculate it must exist, but the speculation goes so far as
>>> to claim that speculation is the best we can do, that we cannot even
>>> specifically know what form of machine it is ... or ur whole freaking
>>> theory here falls apart
>>
>> No, for a given machine, we have the recipe to build the input that it
>> will get wrong.
>
> but none of fucking hypotheticals actually exist!!! what about deciding
> on *only* machines that actually exist???
but "halt" isn't just a hypothetical, it is the placeholder for ANY
decider you want to try to claim.
>
> i'm imaging u asking next: "how do you limit the input to only machines
> that exist???"
Because the all do, at least if your claimed halt exist.
If you admit that there is not possible halt to exist, then you have
agreed to the proposition and don't need further proof.
>
> like, WHAT IN THE FUCK!??? only machines that exist in the full
> enumeration, actually exist!
Right, and non of them give the right answer to the und built from them,
so none of them can be a correct halt decider.
>
>>
>> Thus, for any existing machine you want to claim to be a prospective
>> halt decider, I can show an input that it gets wrong.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ur not operating on speculation, u are proposing there exists a
>>>>> *hard* and *certain* but *unknowable* teapot that would cease to
>>>>> exist if it were ever found...
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I don't need the "teapot" to exist for Halting to not be
>>>> computab;le.
>>>
>>> yeah u do: if a decider cannot handle ever input, then there must
>>> exist the input that the decider cannot handle
>>
>> No I don't, as I can provide a physically demonstratable input for ANY
>> machine you want to put forward.
>>
>> I don't need to find that elusive unknowable machine.
>
> u just need to speculate endlessly about it and assert it's truth,
> because ur so convinced that ur broken ass theory of computing is coherent
Because it IS true, and your problem is you don't understand the logic
of universals.
If I can show that ALL are incorrect, I have shown that NONE are correct.
If you are looking for an example form that "none", you don't understand
how logic works.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> u are asserting that the teapot *must* exist, and go so far as to
>>> claim that even if we can look at it (which we can, because we can
>>> enumerate all machines, err "teapots"), we just can't know that the
>>> teapot is the specific teapot we're looking for
>>>
>>
>> That the teapot must exist is a RESULT of the fact that we can show
>> that the problem is uncomputable. If we had an algorithm that allowed
>> us to KNOW the behavior of every machine, then we could make the input
>> on whatever that algorithm that we used to know about machines, and
>> that algorithm would be wrong about that machine.
>
> or maybe theory is just broken instead of fixing it, u shoved it under a
> fucking rug for the last century in fear of machines that you do nothing
> more than speculate about
If your idea of "fixing" a system is to just declair it broken, you are
showing your stupidity.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 21:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <10h8boq$ka3j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137398 |
On 12/8/25 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > ??? > > Given Machine H is chosen as one partial decider then the machine: > > H^(d): if H(d, d) returns halting, loop forever > else halt. i'm sorry now ur claiming H(d,d) actually returns an answer??? when did this happen, and what does it return buddy??? > > Then H^(H^) will show that H was wrong for H(H^, H^) > > How is that not showing the machine which that machine can not decider. partial decidable does not fly it loses to BB if BB has some limit L (which is must if u believe halting problem), then there must be some specifically L-state machine which *no* machine could decide upon, for if that machine was decidable by anything, then BB could find that anything and subvert the limit L > > It seems you are stuck on your strawman with confused qualification that > NO machine can decide that input correctly, but that isn't the claim, > only that this particular one doesn't. > > The fact that I can ALWAYS make such a machine for ANY decider you may > want to create means that: > > For ALL deciders H, there exist an input H^ that that particual H gets > wrong. or ur theory is just broken and u refuse to address it > > THus, but the logic of qualifies, this means that there does not exist > any H that gets the correct answer for all inputs. > >> >>> >>>> that can't look anything like the hypothetical machines in >>>> undecidability proofs that don't actually exist??? >>> >>> Nope, THAT decider didn't give the correct answer, not that NO >>> machine cna give the correct answer. >> >> when it comes to hypothesized undecidable proofs ... no machine can >> correctly decide: >> >> und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever(), not just halts() > > Note, this und isn't a machine until a particular Halts is chosen, and > DOES show that any prospecive Halt Decider can't be an always correct > halt decider. > > Thus, you yourself just showed the input for the GIVEN decider "halts" > >> >> so know ur just fucking cherry-picking behavior randomly without proof >> or a system to justify it because it suits the world view u've been >> taught for this point in the discussion > > No, we know your brain is just mush, as you just demonstrated the point > you claimed couldn't be shown. yeah cause i know what ur arguments are u retard, i just don't agree because they result in a bunch of barely justified extrapolation about unknowable math ghosts preventing u from effectively computing a halting map i think it's bunk, we (those who don't agree with the halting problem) just haven't quite nailed down the contradiction involved succinctly enough -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <VOUZQ.21384$URL8.7823@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #137406 |
On 12/9/25 12:23 AM, dart200 wrote: > On 12/8/25 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >> ??? >> >> Given Machine H is chosen as one partial decider then the machine: >> >> H^(d): if H(d, d) returns halting, loop forever >> else halt. > > i'm sorry now ur claiming H(d,d) actually returns an answer??? > > when did this happen, and what does it return buddy??? what ever its programs says it will. Do you not understand the concept of a parameter to an arguement? My claim is if *YOU* give me a machine H, I can prove it wrong. YOU need to provide some machine that my arguement will label as H. > >> >> Then H^(H^) will show that H was wrong for H(H^, H^) >> >> How is that not showing the machine which that machine can not decider. > > partial decidable does not fly it loses to BB Nope, because "partial deciability" means the machine is allowed to not answer. > > if BB has some limit L (which is must if u believe halting problem), > then there must be some specifically L-state machine which *no* machine > could decide upon, for if that machine was decidable by anything, then > BB could find that anything and subvert the limit L WHy does BB need to have a limit L? There may be a limit to its input that BB can create a correct answer. IF you allow "partial decidability", then BB just can't use a partial decider to correctly get its answer. The issue is your BB is like the Ghost you keep on trying to talk about. It is a machine that just doesn't exist, a you can't take the limit of a thing that doesn't exist. And you have it wrong. There are machine that can correctly decide on that BB, it is just we can't tell which machines those are or if any given machine is in that set. Because we can't tell if that machine just happened to get the right answer, we can't get the knowledge out of it. The problem is that just because some "random" machine gives the right answer, if we don't know it does, then BB couldn't has used it to make its decision. > >> >> It seems you are stuck on your strawman with confused qualification >> that NO machine can decide that input correctly, but that isn't the >> claim, only that this particular one doesn't. >> >> The fact that I can ALWAYS make such a machine for ANY decider you may >> want to create means that: >> >> For ALL deciders H, there exist an input H^ that that particual H gets >> wrong. > > or ur theory is just broken and u refuse to address it So, what is broken. The only broken thing I have seen so far is your logic. You don't seem to know what you are actually talking about. > >> >> THus, but the logic of qualifies, this means that there does not exist >> any H that gets the correct answer for all inputs. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> that can't look anything like the hypothetical machines in >>>>> undecidability proofs that don't actually exist??? >>>> >>>> Nope, THAT decider didn't give the correct answer, not that NO >>>> machine cna give the correct answer. >>> >>> when it comes to hypothesized undecidable proofs ... no machine can >>> correctly decide: >>> >>> und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever(), not just halts() >> >> Note, this und isn't a machine until a particular Halts is chosen, and >> DOES show that any prospecive Halt Decider can't be an always correct >> halt decider. >> >> Thus, you yourself just showed the input for the GIVEN decider "halts" >> >>> >>> so know ur just fucking cherry-picking behavior randomly without >>> proof or a system to justify it because it suits the world view u've >>> been taught for this point in the discussion >> >> No, we know your brain is just mush, as you just demonstrated the >> point you claimed couldn't be shown. > > yeah cause i know what ur arguments are u retard, i just don't agree > because they result in a bunch of barely justified extrapolation about > unknowable math ghosts preventing u from effectively computing a halting > map In other words, you don't like the truth, so you mush your brain to try to claim it can't be. > > i think it's bunk, we (those who don't agree with the halting problem) > just haven't quite nailed down the contradiction involved succinctly enough > In other words, you think personal opinions are greater than mathematical proof. That is the proof that your brain is just mush. You "Know" you must be right, without any actual proof, so you ignore the truth and prove your stupidity. The problem is, Truth *IS* true, and you can't just assume it isn't, and lies are lies and you can't make them the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 10:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <10h9rbi$vt85$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137409 |
On 12/9/25 4:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/9/25 12:23 AM, dart200 wrote: >> On 12/8/25 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >>> ??? >>> >>> Given Machine H is chosen as one partial decider then the machine: >>> >>> H^(d): if H(d, d) returns halting, loop forever >>> else halt. >> >> i'm sorry now ur claiming H(d,d) actually returns an answer??? >> >> when did this happen, and what does it return buddy??? > > what ever its programs says it will. > > Do you not understand the concept of a parameter to an arguement? > > My claim is if *YOU* give me a machine H, I can prove it wrong. > > YOU need to provide some machine that my arguement will label as H. > >> >>> >>> Then H^(H^) will show that H was wrong for H(H^, H^) >>> >>> How is that not showing the machine which that machine can not decider. >> >> partial decidable does not fly it loses to BB > > Nope, because "partial deciability" means the machine is allowed to not > answer. so what ur saying is H won't answer, so H^ will have an answer? i did explore that paradigm in one of my papers, a believe it's possible to create a program that seeks out an contradicts any and all deciders that try to decide on it: https://www.academia.edu/136521323/how_to_resolve_a_halting_paradox (partial decidability also wouldn't work in Turing's "satisfactory" problem from the og paper /on computable numbers/, but we'll get there later) > >> >> if BB has some limit L (which is must if u believe halting problem), >> then there must be some specifically L-state machine which *no* >> machine could decide upon, for if that machine was decidable by >> anything, then BB could find that anything and subvert the limit L > > WHy does BB need to have a limit L? my my richard, u don't know that in ur theory BB must have a limit? if you believe the halting problem, then BB must have a limit L, or else halting becomes generally solvable using the BB function. see, if you can compute the BB number for any N-state machines, then for any N-state machine u can just run the N-state machine until BB number of steps. any machine that halts on or before BB(N) steps halts, any that run past must be nonhalting and the problem with allowing for partial decidability is that BB can run continually run more and more deciders in parallel, on every N-state machine, until one comes back with an halting answer, for every N-state machine, which then it can the use to decide what the BB number is for any N ... contradicting the concept it must have a limit L, where some L-state machine cannot be decidable by *any* partial decider on the matter, so no richard, partial decidability does not work if BB is to have a limit -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 05:56 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Message-ID | <05484f4bbd76b3e91e46566ef931d1d9a6bd7e7f.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #137417 |
On Tue, 2025-12-09 at 10:55 -0800, dart200 wrote: > On 12/9/25 4:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 12/9/25 12:23 AM, dart200 wrote: > > > On 12/8/25 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > > > > ??? > > > > > > > > Given Machine H is chosen as one partial decider then the machine: > > > > > > > > H^(d): if H(d, d) returns halting, loop forever > > > > else halt. > > > > > > i'm sorry now ur claiming H(d,d) actually returns an answer??? > > > > > > when did this happen, and what does it return buddy??? > > > > what ever its programs says it will. > > > > Do you not understand the concept of a parameter to an arguement? > > > > My claim is if *YOU* give me a machine H, I can prove it wrong. > > > > YOU need to provide some machine that my arguement will label as H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then H^(H^) will show that H was wrong for H(H^, H^) > > > > > > > > How is that not showing the machine which that machine can not decider. > > > > > > partial decidable does not fly it loses to BB > > > > Nope, because "partial deciability" means the machine is allowed to not > > answer. > > so what ur saying is H won't answer, so H^ will have an answer? i did > explore that paradigm in one of my papers, a believe it's possible to > create a program that seeks out an contradicts any and all deciders that > try to decide on it: > > https://www.academia.edu/136521323/how_to_resolve_a_halting_paradox > > (partial decidability also wouldn't work in Turing's "satisfactory" > problem from the og paper /on computable numbers/, but we'll get there > later) > > > > > > > > > if BB has some limit L (which is must if u believe halting problem), > > > then there must be some specifically L-state machine which *no* > > > machine could decide upon, for if that machine was decidable by > > > anything, then BB could find that anything and subvert the limit L > > > > WHy does BB need to have a limit L? > > my my richard, u don't know that in ur theory BB must have a limit? > > if you believe the halting problem, then BB must have a limit L, or else > halting becomes generally solvable using the BB function. see, if you > can compute the BB number for any N-state machines, then for any N-state > machine u can just run the N-state machine until BB number of steps. any > machine that halts on or before BB(N) steps halts, any that run past > must be nonhalting > > and the problem with allowing for partial decidability is that BB can > run continually run more and more deciders in parallel, on every N-state > machine, until one comes back with an halting answer, for every N-state > machine, which then it can the use to decide what the BB number is for > any N ... > > contradicting the concept it must have a limit L, where some L-state > machine cannot be decidable by *any* partial decider on the matter, > > so no richard, partial decidability does not work if BB is to have a limit Don't be silly. Even god cannot solve the Halting Problem. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/ghp.txt/download
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web