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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-22 22:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <_Pn2R.201548$Lzl2.46411@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #138214 |
On 12/22/25 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: > > the philosophy of how we go about implementing computer systems with > society stems from the theory of computing, especially including in > regards to ti's systems. That is nonsense since Computation Theory has almost nothing to do with the typical practical matters of a modern computer and its use. I think you are sadly mistaken about what you talk about. There may be a lot in "Computer Science" that affects things, but that isn't Computation Theory, which is just in a corner of the field, even if somewhat foundational.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-22 19:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10id211$1j8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138216 |
On 12/22/25 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/22/25 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >> >> the philosophy of how we go about implementing computer systems with >> society stems from the theory of computing, especially including in >> regards to ti's systems. > > That is nonsense since Computation Theory has almost nothing to do with > the typical practical matters of a modern computer and its use. > > I think you are sadly mistaken about what you talk about. > > There may be a lot in "Computer Science" that affects things, but that > isn't Computation Theory, which is just in a corner of the field, even > if somewhat foundational. from later on in that same post: > it is related u narrow minded retard, > > go ask any language designer why we don't do total halting analysis > and the halting problem is surely to be mentioned. i get that > professional programmers are one step removed from the language > writer, but the way they code is invariable influenced by the way the > language is written. > > ur not very good at systemic thot my dude, so ur just gunna deny the > causality here. but it exists, and the disgusting facade of > rationality found with modern computing system is my *main* > motivation. called that u'd just deny it how predicable -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-22 22:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <Jdo2R.332774$ACS3.170437@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #138220 |
On 12/22/25 10:24 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 12/22/25 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/22/25 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> >>> the philosophy of how we go about implementing computer systems with >>> society stems from the theory of computing, especially including in >>> regards to ti's systems. >> >> That is nonsense since Computation Theory has almost nothing to do >> with the typical practical matters of a modern computer and its use. >> >> I think you are sadly mistaken about what you talk about. >> >> There may be a lot in "Computer Science" that affects things, but that >> isn't Computation Theory, which is just in a corner of the field, even >> if somewhat foundational. > > from later on in that same post: > > > it is related u narrow minded retard, > > > > go ask any language designer why we don't do total halting analysis > > and the halting problem is surely to be mentioned. i get that > > professional programmers are one step removed from the language > > writer, but the way they code is invariable influenced by the way the > > language is written. > > > > ur not very good at systemic thot my dude, so ur just gunna deny the > > causality here. but it exists, and the disgusting facade of > > rationality found with modern computing system is my *main* > > motivation. > > called that u'd just deny it > > how predicable > Yep, and you are just wrong because you just deny the truth that you don't like. You may THINK that computation theory is behind this, but that is just showing your ignorance of the field. What you are looking at are many other aspects of computer science, but NOT computaiton theory. Yes, we KNOW that total halting analysis can't be done, so we don't try to do that. Arw you sayng we should be putting effort into things that we know can't be solved and doom ourselves to no progress? That was the trap that these discoveries freed us from, knowing we can't to the perfect job, allowed the computer engineering disciplines to look at "how good" can we do, and not worry about the need to be perfect, since we can't be. Defining a toy version of the problem wont' solve the actual problems, but if people think it does, then we have the error of thinking we are safe when we aren't. I guess you are just following the classic error of ignoring history, so dooming yourself to repeating it. You may keep of finding ideas that just seem so close to being the answer, but there will always be that ghost of a case that catches you unawares.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-22 21:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10id8uq$1j8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138227 |
On 12/22/25 7:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/22/25 10:24 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 12/22/25 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/22/25 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> >>>> the philosophy of how we go about implementing computer systems with >>>> society stems from the theory of computing, especially including in >>>> regards to ti's systems. >>> >>> That is nonsense since Computation Theory has almost nothing to do >>> with the typical practical matters of a modern computer and its use. >>> >>> I think you are sadly mistaken about what you talk about. >>> >>> There may be a lot in "Computer Science" that affects things, but >>> that isn't Computation Theory, which is just in a corner of the >>> field, even if somewhat foundational. >> >> from later on in that same post: >> >> > it is related u narrow minded retard, >> > >> > go ask any language designer why we don't do total halting analysis >> > and the halting problem is surely to be mentioned. i get that >> > professional programmers are one step removed from the language >> > writer, but the way they code is invariable influenced by the way the >> > language is written. >> > >> > ur not very good at systemic thot my dude, so ur just gunna deny the >> > causality here. but it exists, and the disgusting facade of >> > rationality found with modern computing system is my *main* >> > motivation. >> >> called that u'd just deny it >> >> how predicable >> > > Yep, and you are just wrong because you just deny the truth that you > don't like. > > You may THINK that computation theory is behind this, but that is just > showing your ignorance of the field. What you are looking at are many > other aspects of computer science, but NOT computaiton theory. > > Yes, we KNOW that total halting analysis can't be done, so we don't try > to do that. oh rick, when it hits, ur not gunna able to it, unsee 😅 > > Arw you sayng we should be putting effort into things that we know can't > be solved and doom ourselves to no progress? > > That was the trap that these discoveries freed us from, knowing we can't > to the perfect job, allowed the computer engineering disciplines to look > at "how good" can we do, and not worry about the need to be perfect, > since we can't be. > > Defining a toy version of the problem wont' solve the actual problems, > but if people think it does, then we have the error of thinking we are > safe when we aren't. > > I guess you are just following the classic error of ignoring history, so > dooming yourself to repeating it. > > You may keep of finding ideas that just seem so close to being the > answer, but there will always be that ghost of a case that catches you > unawares. > > ye have little faith > > #god 🤡🌎 -- hi, we are god! let's end war 🙃
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-20 21:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10i806l$2h01f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138034 |
On 12/20/2025 7:31 PM, dart200 wrote: [...] > my retarded nigger, there are no fucking "basic rules of computation > theory" on what "analysis" consists of .... Wow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-25 00:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10ii0qk$v887$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138021 |
Am Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:17:52 -0800 schrieb dart200:
> On 12/20/25 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/20/25 4:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 12/19/25 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> Nope, as "undecidable" isn't a property of an instance, but of a
>>>
>>> well it's a property of hypothetical instances
>>
>> Nope. You clearly don't understand what "undecidable" means, and that
>> yo0u refuse to learn it.
>
> und = () -> {
> if ( halts(und) ) loop_forever()
> }
>
> und() is a hypothetical instance of a machine that is provably
> undecidable (given that halts() is a classic halting decider)
No, und() is concrete and decidable, given halts(). That one
is hypothetical.
> we can compute this semantic property with a simple algo:
>
> 1) inject in /true/ for halts(und):
> () -> if (true) loop_forever
> this runs forever
>
> 2) inject in /false/ for halts(und):
> () -> if (false) loop_forever
> this halts
>
> 3) compare the injected prediction with the result of the computation.
> if the semantic results from (1) and (2) diverge from the injected
> prediction, the hypothetical machine is undecidable.
...for this decider.
--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 21:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10iih3p$1kuco$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138325 |
On 12/24/25 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:17:52 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>> On 12/20/25 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/20/25 4:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/25 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>>>> Nope, as "undecidable" isn't a property of an instance, but of a
>>>>
>>>> well it's a property of hypothetical instances
>>>
>>> Nope. You clearly don't understand what "undecidable" means, and that
>>> yo0u refuse to learn it.
>>
>> und = () -> {
>> if ( halts(und) ) loop_forever()
>> }
>>
>> und() is a hypothetical instance of a machine that is provably
>> undecidable (given that halts() is a classic halting decider)
>
> No, und() is concrete and decidable, given halts(). That one
> is hypothetical.
therefore und() is hypothetical, given that halts() is hypothetical
given the real enumeration of machines, und() is not a concrete example
of halting machine that cannot be proven functionally equivalent to
other machines are functionally equivalent.
>
>> we can compute this semantic property with a simple algo:
>>
>> 1) inject in /true/ for halts(und):
>> () -> if (true) loop_forever
>> this runs forever
>>
>> 2) inject in /false/ for halts(und):
>> () -> if (false) loop_forever
>> this halts
>>
>> 3) compare the injected prediction with the result of the computation.
>> if the semantic results from (1) and (2) diverge from the injected
>> prediction, the hypothetical machine is undecidable.
>
> ...for this decider.
>
--
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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 22:02 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10iik1h$1kuco$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138329 |
On 12/24/25 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 12/24/25 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:17:52 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>>> On 12/20/25 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/25 4:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/25 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Nope, as "undecidable" isn't a property of an instance, but of a
>>>>>
>>>>> well it's a property of hypothetical instances
>>>>
>>>> Nope. You clearly don't understand what "undecidable" means, and that
>>>> yo0u refuse to learn it.
>>>
>>> und = () -> {
>>> if ( halts(und) ) loop_forever()
>>> }
>>>
>>> und() is a hypothetical instance of a machine that is provably
>>> undecidable (given that halts() is a classic halting decider)
>>
>> No, und() is concrete and decidable, given halts(). That one
>> is hypothetical.
>
> therefore und() is hypothetical, given that halts() is hypothetical
>
> given the real enumeration of machines, und() is not a concrete example
> of halting machine that cannot be proven functionally equivalent to
> other machines are functionally equivalent.
this whole thing is a bunch of freaking smoke and mirrors...
like i have a bunch of problem machines that are supposed to exists,
that prevent me from generally deciding on machines, in regards to any
kind of semantic decider u can imagine...
but literally none of them are concretely tangible machines cause if
even one was, and i could know it specifically... the whole thing falls
apart into incongruity,
YET at the same them you keep asserting you have proof they all *must*
exist!
sheesh
i just need to find one fuck-up my dudes, and the whole house of cards
is gunna come falling down
>
>>
>>> we can compute this semantic property with a simple algo:
>>>
>>> 1) inject in /true/ for halts(und):
>>> () -> if (true) loop_forever
>>> this runs forever
>>>
>>> 2) inject in /false/ for halts(und):
>>> () -> if (false) loop_forever
>>> this halts
>>>
>>> 3) compare the injected prediction with the result of the computation.
>>> if the semantic results from (1) and (2) diverge from the injected
>>> prediction, the hypothetical machine is undecidable.
>>
>> ...for this decider.
>>
>
--
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 | 2025-12-25 07:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <zla3R.71$mUza.41@fx09.ams1> |
| In reply to | #138330 |
On 12/25/25 1:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 12/24/25 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 12/24/25 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:17:52 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>>>> On 12/20/25 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/25 4:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/19/25 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, as "undecidable" isn't a property of an instance, but of a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> well it's a property of hypothetical instances
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. You clearly don't understand what "undecidable" means, and that
>>>>> yo0u refuse to learn it.
>>>>
>>>> und = () -> {
>>>> if ( halts(und) ) loop_forever()
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> und() is a hypothetical instance of a machine that is provably
>>>> undecidable (given that halts() is a classic halting decider)
>>>
>>> No, und() is concrete and decidable, given halts(). That one
>>> is hypothetical.
>>
>> therefore und() is hypothetical, given that halts() is hypothetical
>>
>> given the real enumeration of machines, und() is not a concrete
>> example of halting machine that cannot be proven functionally
>> equivalent to other machines are functionally equivalent.
>
> this whole thing is a bunch of freaking smoke and mirrors...
>
> like i have a bunch of problem machines that are supposed to exists,
> that prevent me from generally deciding on machines, in regards to any
> kind of semantic decider u can imagine...
Right, for every machine that you might think solves the problem, there
is a machine that shows it doesn't
>
> but literally none of them are concretely tangible machines cause if
> even one was, and i could know it specifically... the whole thing falls
> apart into incongruity,
No, every one of them is a concrete machine that shows that the machine
it was built on is wrong.
>
> YET at the same them you keep asserting you have proof they all *must*
> exist!
>
> sheesh
>
> i just need to find one fuck-up my dudes, and the whole house of cards
> is gunna come falling down
No, the problem is you brain just can't handle the logic, because YOU
are apparently fucked-up.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> we can compute this semantic property with a simple algo:
>>>>
>>>> 1) inject in /true/ for halts(und):
>>>> () -> if (true) loop_forever
>>>> this runs forever
>>>>
>>>> 2) inject in /false/ for halts(und):
>>>> () -> if (false) loop_forever
>>>> this halts
>>>>
>>>> 3) compare the injected prediction with the result of the computation.
>>>> if the semantic results from (1) and (2) diverge from the injected
>>>> prediction, the hypothetical machine is undecidable.
>>>
>>> ...for this decider.
>>>
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-25 07:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <Hla3R.72$mUza.5@fx09.ams1> |
| In reply to | #138329 |
On 12/25/25 12:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 12/24/25 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:17:52 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>>> On 12/20/25 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/25 4:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/25 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Nope, as "undecidable" isn't a property of an instance, but of a
>>>>>
>>>>> well it's a property of hypothetical instances
>>>>
>>>> Nope. You clearly don't understand what "undecidable" means, and that
>>>> yo0u refuse to learn it.
>>>
>>> und = () -> {
>>> if ( halts(und) ) loop_forever()
>>> }
>>>
>>> und() is a hypothetical instance of a machine that is provably
>>> undecidable (given that halts() is a classic halting decider)
>>
>> No, und() is concrete and decidable, given halts(). That one
>> is hypothetical.
>
> therefore und() is hypothetical, given that halts() is hypothetical
In otherwords, you admit you don't understand how proof by contradiction
works.
EVERY "halts" that you want to try to claim to meet the specification,
turns out it can not, because we can show an input it gets wrong.
>
> given the real enumeration of machines, und() is not a concrete example
> of halting machine that cannot be proven functionally equivalent to
> other machines are functionally equivalent.
No, we get an infinite number of unds showing that the infinite number
of potential halt deciders are not halt deciders.
Your problem is you keep on thinking that "und()" is a single specific
machine independent of what halts() is, but that is a category error.
>
>>
>>> we can compute this semantic property with a simple algo:
>>>
>>> 1) inject in /true/ for halts(und):
>>> () -> if (true) loop_forever
>>> this runs forever
>>>
>>> 2) inject in /false/ for halts(und):
>>> () -> if (false) loop_forever
>>> this halts
>>>
>>> 3) compare the injected prediction with the result of the computation.
>>> if the semantic results from (1) and (2) diverge from the injected
>>> prediction, the hypothetical machine is undecidable.
>>
>> ...for this decider.
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-17 22:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10i0618$30ub$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137845 |
On 12/17/25 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/25 11:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 12/17/25 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/17/25 8:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/25 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/17/2025 1:54 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/17/25 1:24 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 1:14 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 1:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you deal with a case where its not a lie, (e.g., can pass
>>>>>>>> many lie detector tests) if _they_ believe its true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember what happened to that doctor in the Andromeda Strain?
>>>>>>> That blinking red light made her miss that sample where the viral
>>>>>>> agent sample was destroyed, no growth... She would say she missed
>>>>>>> nothing...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no idea what ur tryin to say tbh
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Still not sure how you solve the halting paradox unless you already
>>>>> know the answer for any path taken in a program under consideration.
>>>>
>>>> because the paradox is an inability to decide between two known
>>>> branches, both of which have decidable effects (one halts, one runs
>>>> forever)
>>>>
>>>> i'm concerned with showing how we can fix that inability. i'm not
>>>> concerned with deciding on paths that have no branching, as that was
>>>> never the demonstrated problem, as such u need branching to form a
>>>> decision paradox
>>>>
>>>
>>> But there are not two branches in the behavior of the input, but only
>>> one of them.
>>>
>>> The one that is the opposite of what the decider predicts.
>>>
>>> You are making the Olcottian mistake of forgetting that the input
>>> doesn't "reference" the decider, and thus changes as we imagine
>>> different deciders, but is fixed on the one we started with.
>>
>> dick, the classic halting decider doesn't exist, so why would a
>> resolution that might actually exist, be fixed to referencing a
>> certainly non-existent machine??? 🙄🙄🙄
>
> I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
>
> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.
>
> Note, part of that interface is that the input is a PROGRAM, which
> contains ALL of its code, and not a "external link" to something else.
>
> That means any talk of some other decider, doesn't change the behavior
> of the input.
that hypothesized input involving the classic halting decider DOES NOT EXIST
if the fixed decider actually does exist, it only needs to decide on
machines THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, which does NOT include the hypothesized
classic haling decider
the only input a fixed decider needs to decide on are those machines
possibly involving fixed decider, NOT a classical decider
>
> Thus, imaginign that you function returns something else, doesn't change
> the return value of the copy of the function inside the machine in the
> input, and thus you don't get your incoherence, just proof that you
> functions were wrong, and can't call the machie incoherent.
main = () -> {
und = () -> {
if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
loop() // within the context of main.und
else
halt()
}
if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
print 'und halts' // within the context of main
else
print 'und does not halt'
}
the decision returned by halts(und) does not "change" the runtime of
und(). und() only has one possible runtime execution, and it never
actually runs in this example. to let me know u actually are following
what i'm trying to propose:
what do *i* propose main() prints when run?
i'm not interested in whether you accept my viewpoint this time, i
already know u don't, so please don't explain, i'm sure you will
anyways... but what i'm interested in is whether you actually have
actually understood the proposal i'm trying to make
>
>>
>>>
>>> When we imagine a different decider, we can create a totally
>>> different input that makes that one wrong too.
>>>
>>> The two branches are only there at the meta level, not at the actual
>>> level were we do the actual computation.
>>
>> obviously, because the paradox arises in meta-analysis, not actual
>> computation 👍👍👍
>>
>> except ... isn't the meta-analysis actually a computation itself? or
>> do u think we're doing meta-analysis that somehow transcends computation?
>>
>
> Nope. The Meta-Analysis is not a computation, but logic that produces
> the program that does the computation.
>
> The Meta-Analysis can add "meaning" to the purely syntactic operations
> of the program, but isn't itself a computation.
i don't agree our meta-analysis of hypothetical computing machines
transcends computing
we may have to leave off just disagreeing on these points. i'm not sure
how we can make progress if u keep insisting a real decider would need
to decide on hypothesized machines that can't exist
--
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 | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-18 12:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10i0sao$9cjl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137849 |
Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:12:56 -0800 schrieb dart200:
> On 12/17/25 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
>> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.
>> Note, part of that interface is that the input is a PROGRAM, which
>> contains ALL of its code, and not a "external link" to something else.
>> That means any talk of some other decider, doesn't change the behavior
>> of the input.
>
> that hypothesized input involving the classic halting decider DOES NOT
> EXIST
Only because halt deciders don't exist, which they are built on.
> if the fixed decider actually does exist, it only needs to decide on
> machines THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, which does NOT include the hypothesized
> classic haling decider
> the only input a fixed decider needs to decide on are those machines
> possibly involving fixed decider, NOT a classical decider
It needs to decide its counterexample input. Not sure what you mean by
"classical" deciders.
>> Thus, imaginign that you function returns something else, doesn't
>> change the return value of the copy of the function inside the machine
>> in the input, and thus you don't get your incoherence, just proof that
>> you functions were wrong, and can't call the machie incoherent.
>
> main = () -> {
> und = () -> {
> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
> loop() // within the context of main.und
> else
> halt()
> }
>
> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
> print 'und halts' // within the context of main
> else
> print 'und does not halt'
> }
>
> the decision returned by halts(und) does not "change" the runtime of
> und(). und() only has one possible runtime execution, and it never
> actually runs in this example.
If that is just a definition, why is it inside main? To have the
execution context as a hidden input?
--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-18 07:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10i0u32$a92p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137864 |
On 12/18/2025 6:33 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:12:56 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>> On 12/17/25 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.
>>> Note, part of that interface is that the input is a PROGRAM, which
>>> contains ALL of its code, and not a "external link" to something else.
>>> That means any talk of some other decider, doesn't change the behavior
>>> of the input.
>>
>> that hypothesized input involving the classic halting decider DOES NOT
>> EXIST
> Only because halt deciders don't exist, which they are built on.
>
A halt decider can have a domain of one input.
>> if the fixed decider actually does exist, it only needs to decide on
>> machines THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, which does NOT include the hypothesized
>> classic haling decider
>> the only input a fixed decider needs to decide on are those machines
>> possibly involving fixed decider, NOT a classical decider
>
> It needs to decide its counterexample input. Not sure what you mean by
> "classical" deciders.
>
>
>>> Thus, imaginign that you function returns something else, doesn't
>>> change the return value of the copy of the function inside the machine
>>> in the input, and thus you don't get your incoherence, just proof that
>>> you functions were wrong, and can't call the machie incoherent.
>>
>> main = () -> {
>> und = () -> {
>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>> loop() // within the context of main.und
>> else
>> halt()
>> }
>>
>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>> print 'und halts' // within the context of main
>> else
>> print 'und does not halt'
>> }
>>
>> the decision returned by halts(und) does not "change" the runtime of
>> und(). und() only has one possible runtime execution, and it never
>> actually runs in this example.
>
> If that is just a definition, why is it inside main? To have the
> execution context as a hidden input?
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>
My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>
This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-18 19:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <tm11R.6$5%2a.2@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #137868 |
On 12/18/25 8:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/18/2025 6:33 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:12:56 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>>> On 12/17/25 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>>> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.
>>>> Note, part of that interface is that the input is a PROGRAM, which
>>>> contains ALL of its code, and not a "external link" to something else.
>>>> That means any talk of some other decider, doesn't change the behavior
>>>> of the input.
>>>
>>> that hypothesized input involving the classic halting decider DOES NOT
>>> EXIST
>> Only because halt deciders don't exist, which they are built on.
>>
>
> A halt decider can have a domain of one input.
Nope, that would be a partial halt decider.
>
>>> if the fixed decider actually does exist, it only needs to decide on
>>> machines THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, which does NOT include the hypothesized
>>> classic haling decider
>>> the only input a fixed decider needs to decide on are those machines
>>> possibly involving fixed decider, NOT a classical decider
>>
>> It needs to decide its counterexample input. Not sure what you mean by
>> "classical" deciders.
>>
>>
>>>> Thus, imaginign that you function returns something else, doesn't
>>>> change the return value of the copy of the function inside the machine
>>>> in the input, and thus you don't get your incoherence, just proof that
>>>> you functions were wrong, and can't call the machie incoherent.
>>>
>>> main = () -> {
>>> und = () -> {
>>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>>> loop() // within the context of main.und
>>> else
>>> halt()
>>> }
>>>
>>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>>> print 'und halts' // within the context of main
>>> else
>>> print 'und does not halt'
>>> }
>>>
>>> the decision returned by halts(und) does not "change" the runtime of
>>> und(). und() only has one possible runtime execution, and it never
>>> actually runs in this example.
>>
>> If that is just a definition, why is it inside main? To have the
>> execution context as a hidden input?
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-18 16:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10i25g9$q1ra$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137864 |
On 12/18/25 4:33 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:12:56 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>> On 12/17/25 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.
>>> Note, part of that interface is that the input is a PROGRAM, which
>>> contains ALL of its code, and not a "external link" to something else.
>>> That means any talk of some other decider, doesn't change the behavior
>>> of the input.
>>
>> that hypothesized input involving the classic halting decider DOES NOT
>> EXIST
> Only because halt deciders don't exist, which they are built on.
*classic halting deciders do not exist, correct
>
>> if the fixed decider actually does exist, it only needs to decide on
>> machines THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, which does NOT include the hypothesized
>> classic haling decider
>> the only input a fixed decider needs to decide on are those machines
>> possibly involving fixed decider, NOT a classical decider
>
> It needs to decide its counterexample input. Not sure what you mean by
> "classical" deciders.
the classic halting decider is the one you already know: returns true
iff input halts, and false iff input does not halt, with no further
conditions on how they return
i'm exploring alternative context-aware deciders to in order to mitigate
the halting paradox problem (and decision paradoxes more generally)
>
>
>>> Thus, imaginign that you function returns something else, doesn't
>>> change the return value of the copy of the function inside the machine
>>> in the input, and thus you don't get your incoherence, just proof that
>>> you functions were wrong, and can't call the machie incoherent.
>>
>> main = () -> {
>> und = () -> {
>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>> loop() // within the context of main.und
>> else
>> halt()
>> }
>>
>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>> print 'und halts' // within the context of main
>> else
>> print 'und does not halt'
>> }
>>
>> the decision returned by halts(und) does not "change" the runtime of
>> und(). und() only has one possible runtime execution, and it never
>> actually runs in this example.
>
> If that is just a definition, why is it inside main? To have the
> execution context as a hidden input?
so i could have contexts of main.und vs just main. a bit arbitrary sure,
just what i felt at time of writing
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-18 18:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10i25mq$q3p0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137879 |
On 12/18/2025 6:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 12/18/25 4:33 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:12:56 -0800 schrieb dart200:
>>> On 12/17/25 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>>> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.
>>>> Note, part of that interface is that the input is a PROGRAM, which
>>>> contains ALL of its code, and not a "external link" to something else.
>>>> That means any talk of some other decider, doesn't change the behavior
>>>> of the input.
>>>
>>> that hypothesized input involving the classic halting decider DOES NOT
>>> EXIST
>> Only because halt deciders don't exist, which they are built on.
>
> *classic halting deciders do not exist, correct
>
Only because they have been misconceived.
>>
>>> if the fixed decider actually does exist, it only needs to decide on
>>> machines THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, which does NOT include the hypothesized
>>> classic haling decider
>>> the only input a fixed decider needs to decide on are those machines
>>> possibly involving fixed decider, NOT a classical decider
>>
>> It needs to decide its counterexample input. Not sure what you mean by
>> "classical" deciders.
>
> the classic halting decider is the one you already know: returns true
> iff input halts, and false iff input does not halt, with no further
> conditions on how they return
>
> i'm exploring alternative context-aware deciders to in order to mitigate
> the halting paradox problem (and decision paradoxes more generally)
>
>>
>>
>>>> Thus, imaginign that you function returns something else, doesn't
>>>> change the return value of the copy of the function inside the machine
>>>> in the input, and thus you don't get your incoherence, just proof that
>>>> you functions were wrong, and can't call the machie incoherent.
>>>
>>> main = () -> {
>>> und = () -> {
>>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>>> loop() // within the context of main.und
>>> else
>>> halt()
>>> }
>>>
>>> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
>>> print 'und halts' // within the context of main
>>> else
>>> print 'und does not halt'
>>> }
>>>
>>> the decision returned by halts(und) does not "change" the runtime of
>>> und(). und() only has one possible runtime execution, and it never
>>> actually runs in this example.
>>
>> If that is just a definition, why is it inside main? To have the
>> execution context as a hidden input?
>
> so i could have contexts of main.und vs just main. a bit arbitrary sure,
> just what i felt at time of writing
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>
My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>
This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-18 21:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10i2mrn$u4o7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137849 |
On 12/17/25 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 12/17/25 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/25 11:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 12/17/25 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/25 8:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 12/17/25 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 1:54 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/17/25 1:24 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 1:14 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 1:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you deal with a case where its not a lie, (e.g., can
>>>>>>>>> pass many lie detector tests) if _they_ believe its true?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember what happened to that doctor in the Andromeda Strain?
>>>>>>>> That blinking red light made her miss that sample where the
>>>>>>>> viral agent sample was destroyed, no growth... She would say she
>>>>>>>> missed nothing...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no idea what ur tryin to say tbh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still not sure how you solve the halting paradox unless you
>>>>>> already know the answer for any path taken in a program under
>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> because the paradox is an inability to decide between two known
>>>>> branches, both of which have decidable effects (one halts, one runs
>>>>> forever)
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm concerned with showing how we can fix that inability. i'm not
>>>>> concerned with deciding on paths that have no branching, as that
>>>>> was never the demonstrated problem, as such u need branching to
>>>>> form a decision paradox
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But there are not two branches in the behavior of the input, but
>>>> only one of them.
>>>>
>>>> The one that is the opposite of what the decider predicts.
>>>>
>>>> You are making the Olcottian mistake of forgetting that the input
>>>> doesn't "reference" the decider, and thus changes as we imagine
>>>> different deciders, but is fixed on the one we started with.
>>>
>>> dick, the classic halting decider doesn't exist, so why would a
>>> resolution that might actually exist, be fixed to referencing a
>>> certainly non-existent machine??? 🙄🙄🙄
>>
>> I guess you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.
>>
>> Note, part of that interface is that the input is a PROGRAM, which
>> contains ALL of its code, and not a "external link" to something else.
>>
>> That means any talk of some other decider, doesn't change the behavior
>> of the input.
>
> that hypothesized input involving the classic halting decider DOES NOT
> EXIST
>
> if the fixed decider actually does exist, it only needs to decide on
> machines THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, which does NOT include the hypothesized
> classic haling decider
>
> the only input a fixed decider needs to decide on are those machines
> possibly involving fixed decider, NOT a classical decider
>
>>
>> Thus, imaginign that you function returns something else, doesn't
>> change the return value of the copy of the function inside the machine
>> in the input, and thus you don't get your incoherence, just proof that
>> you functions were wrong, and can't call the machie incoherent.
>
> main = () -> {
> und = () -> {
> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
> loop() // within the context of main.und
> else
> halt()
> }
>
> if ( halts(und) ) // this instance is deciding from
> print 'und halts' // within the context of main
> else
> print 'und does not halt'
> }
>
> the decision returned by halts(und) does not "change" the runtime of
> und(). und() only has one possible runtime execution, and it never
> actually runs in this example. to let me know u actually are following
> what i'm trying to propose:
>
> what do *i* propose main() prints when run?
you didn't answer the question, chard
>
> i'm not interested in whether you accept my viewpoint this time, i
> already know u don't, so please don't explain, i'm sure you will
> anyways... but what i'm interested in is whether you actually have
> actually understood the proposal i'm trying to make
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we imagine a different decider, we can create a totally
>>>> different input that makes that one wrong too.
>>>>
>>>> The two branches are only there at the meta level, not at the actual
>>>> level were we do the actual computation.
>>>
>>> obviously, because the paradox arises in meta-analysis, not actual
>>> computation 👍👍👍
>>>
>>> except ... isn't the meta-analysis actually a computation itself? or
>>> do u think we're doing meta-analysis that somehow transcends
>>> computation?
>>>
>>
>> Nope. The Meta-Analysis is not a computation, but logic that produces
>> the program that does the computation.
>>
>> The Meta-Analysis can add "meaning" to the purely syntactic operations
>> of the program, but isn't itself a computation.
>
> i don't agree our meta-analysis of hypothetical computing machines
> transcends computing
>
> we may have to leave off just disagreeing on these points. i'm not sure
> how we can make progress if u keep insisting a real decider would need
> to decide on hypothesized machines that can't exist
--
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 | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 22:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10ihr3g$v887$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137838 |
Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 20:50:56 -0800 schrieb dart200: > On 12/17/25 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> But there are not two branches in the behavior of the input, but only >> one of them. >> The one that is the opposite of what the decider predicts. >> You are making the Olcottian mistake of forgetting that the input >> doesn't "reference" the decider, and thus changes as we imagine >> different deciders, but is fixed on the one we started with. > > dick, the classic halting decider doesn't exist, so why would a > resolution that might actually exist, be fixed to referencing a > certainly non-existent machine??? 🙄🙄🙄 You're begging the question. You needn't worry about a "resolution" if you already accept that halt deciders are impossible. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 15:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <10ihu43$1f7j5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138315 |
On 12/24/25 2:56 PM, joes wrote: > Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 20:50:56 -0800 schrieb dart200: >> On 12/17/25 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>> But there are not two branches in the behavior of the input, but only >>> one of them. >>> The one that is the opposite of what the decider predicts. >>> You are making the Olcottian mistake of forgetting that the input >>> doesn't "reference" the decider, and thus changes as we imagine >>> different deciders, but is fixed on the one we started with. >> >> dick, the classic halting decider doesn't exist, so why would a >> resolution that might actually exist, be fixed to referencing a >> certainly non-existent machine??? 🙄🙄🙄 > > You're begging the question. You needn't worry about a "resolution" > if you already accept that halt deciders are impossible. i'm trying to propose a resolution that doesn't even involve making classic halting decider "exist". we all agree the classic halting decider does not exist, even polcott dickard was trying to demand on my proposed context-aware classifier decide on a pathological input involving the classic halting decider ... that which none of us even thinks exist. it's an unobtainable goalpost none of us are even trying to hit, because we all agree it doesn't exist. please tell me what question i'm begging -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 21:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: on what are you even crying about rick? |
| Message-ID | <Id13R.4522$BJ84.1109@fx17.ams1> |
| In reply to | #138323 |
On 12/24/25 6:48 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 12/24/25 2:56 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 17 Dec 2025 20:50:56 -0800 schrieb dart200: >>> On 12/17/25 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >>>> But there are not two branches in the behavior of the input, but only >>>> one of them. >>>> The one that is the opposite of what the decider predicts. >>>> You are making the Olcottian mistake of forgetting that the input >>>> doesn't "reference" the decider, and thus changes as we imagine >>>> different deciders, but is fixed on the one we started with. >>> >>> dick, the classic halting decider doesn't exist, so why would a >>> resolution that might actually exist, be fixed to referencing a >>> certainly non-existent machine??? 🙄🙄🙄 >> >> You're begging the question. You needn't worry about a "resolution" >> if you already accept that halt deciders are impossible. > > i'm trying to propose a resolution that doesn't even involve making > classic halting decider "exist". we all agree the classic halting > decider does not exist, even polcott > > dickard was trying to demand on my proposed context-aware classifier > decide on a pathological input involving the classic halting decider ... > that which none of us even thinks exist. it's an unobtainable goalpost > none of us are even trying to hit, because we all agree it doesn't exist. > > please tell me what question i'm begging > No, it needs to decide on the pathological machine built on IT. But it needs to return the right answer EVERYWHERE, as the question is always the same, what does the machine described by the input do when run independently (with a null context). And remember, the pathological program contains a functional equivalent copy of the decider it is disproving (and not just calling the external decider), and thus your decider can't really detect its use, or argue about it being inconsistant, as you can't change that code, as it is part of the input.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web