Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 449 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:31 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:11 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 14:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:25 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 19:49 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-13 08:54 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:21 -0800
How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0100
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-11-13 12:14 +0000
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:06 -0800
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:28 -0600
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:22 -0600
Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:36 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:49 +0100
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:26 -0600
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 20:59 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 20:49 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:06 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 15:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 10:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 14:56 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:33 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 15:52 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:03 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 09:05 -0800
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 17:52 +0000
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 11:45 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:58 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-15 11:59 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 08:49 +0000
"true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:08 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 13:21 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:46 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:00 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:29 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:23 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:38 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:34 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 13:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:23 +0000
eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 20:34 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 14:45 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:24 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:30 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:20 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:03 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:35 -0600
polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:06 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:46 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:17 +0000
help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:43 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:48 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 11:19 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:47 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox --- TXR and AWK olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:49 -0600
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 21:01 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:18 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 13:03 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:45 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:07 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:41 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:37 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 15:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:41 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:12 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:42 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:57 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:22 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:56 -0800
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 17:24 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:27 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 02:42 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:23 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:41 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 05:04 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:19 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 17:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 12:15 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 18:22 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 19:18 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 23:14 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-22 05:39 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:00 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:26 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:44 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 20:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 14:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:09 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-23 04:20 +0000
Glossary of names in my termination analyzer system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 22:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 22:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 21:56 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 02:54 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:42 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:36 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- is libel against him olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:00 -0600
polcott agrees that the halting problem is incorrect in this way olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:47 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-18 23:47 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 00:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 00:57 +0000
polcott has shwn that the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:17 -0600
Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:24 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:06 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:07 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:41 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:49 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:18 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:40 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:44 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 01:56 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 20:19 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:25 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 22:05 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:43 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:03 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:26 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 19:42 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- quit lying about what I say olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:45 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000
homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 20:53 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-20 21:09 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:06 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:50 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:28 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:33 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:49 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:39 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 23:21 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 23:36 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:43 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:06 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:24 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0600
the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:22 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:48 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:36 +0000
the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:50 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:02 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 13:04 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-19 23:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-19 17:53 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:11 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:05 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:15 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:15 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 23:38 -0800
Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-22 03:02 +0000
halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:48 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:05 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:13 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 20:14 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:25 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:46 +0000
"great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 02:24 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 14:41 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:39 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 10:59 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:17 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:50 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:15 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:54 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:05 +0000
The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 01:03 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:36 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:22 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 08:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 08:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 10:15 -0500
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 18:42 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:06 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:59 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:09 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:31 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:39 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:00 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:19 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:58 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:40 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 11:02 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:10 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:33 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:04 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:26 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:02 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:43 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:57 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:52 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:54 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 20:51 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:20 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:44 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:44 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:58 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:56 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:52 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 16:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:24 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 05:28 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:44 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 19:37 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 09:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:03 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 06:43 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:03 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:24 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:06 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 03:30 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:04 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:14 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:25 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 11:56 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:35 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:05 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:27 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:40 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:08 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:53 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 22:54 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 23:30 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 00:10 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 01:07 +0000
Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 01:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:13 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 03:41 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 10:55 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 11:11 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:44 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 11:26 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:02 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:13 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 10:08 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:27 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-13 04:50 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:16 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:05 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:01 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:30 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:27 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:56 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:09 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:20 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:20 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:25 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:40 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:21 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:03 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:31 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:01 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200
Page 20 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 11:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10fhe50$1f125$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135863 |
On 2025-11-17 13:44:05 +0000, olcott said:
> On 11/17/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-11-16 20:37:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>>>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their review on
>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do this.
>>>>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either right or
>>>>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't have seen
>>>>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or "looks
>>>>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something
>>>>>>>>>> takes more time and work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does
>>>>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words
>>>>>>>> belong to which.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without
>>>>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject
>>>>>>>> more than what the good reason requires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform
>>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an
>>>>>> inaccurate result.
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums
>>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without
>>>>> even looking at them.
>>>>
>>>> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"?
>
> *Quoted from below, thus already asnwered*
False. The tihing about "looking" in quotations below is that I said
"That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction",
which is not an answer to the question aboe.
> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of
> cases is that they said I was wrong and
> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever
> about how and why I was wrong.
That is a kind of answer to the question. However it also means that
your method is not sound.
> This indicates that the rejected the post
> entirely on the basis of its title.
No, that does not indicate that, at least not reliably. Though when the
title is false or off-topic that is a sufficient reason to reject the
post.
>>> A tenured PhD computer science professor
>>> has a very well documented equivalent
>>> experience many different times in many
>>> different ways.
>>>
>>> "Something is wrong with the halting problem"
>>> is immediately translated into {crackpot}.
>>>
>>> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of
>>> cases is that they said I was wrong and
>>> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever
>>> about how and why I was wrong.
>>>
>>> Technical people in the fields of computer
>>> science, math and logic has an emotional
>>> attachment to the foundational assumptions
>>> that is equivalent to a religion.
>>>
>>> On the sole basis that the reasoning is correct
>>> within these foundational assumptions they
>>> construe this as absolute proof that these
>>> assumptions are true.
>>>
>>> It is like they don't have a clue that sound
>>> deduction is not the same as valid deduction.
>>>
>>> A deductive argument is sound if and only if
>>> it is both valid, and all of its premises are
>>> actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument
>>> is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>
>> That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction.
>
> Not at all. My reviewers have acted equivalently to
> a strongly held belief that naive set theory is
> infallibly correct and ZFC is crackpot nonsense.
I have seen many reviews of your postings but none of them has claimed
that the naive set theory is infalliby wrong nor that ZFC is cracpot
nonsense.
>> None of the above answers the question. That can only mean that
>
> You were so sure that I must be wrong that you
> didn't bother to pay attention to my answer to
> the question.
There was no answer to pay attention to.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 09:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fi4mg$1lg47$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135967 |
On 11/18/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-11-17 13:44:05 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 11/17/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-11-16 20:37:07 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin >>>>>>>>>>>> their review on >>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not >>>>>>>>>>>> do this. >>>>>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it >>>>>>>>>>>> either right or >>>>>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't >>>>>>>>>>> have seen >>>>>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" >>>>>>>>>>> or "looks >>>>>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check >>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>> takes more time and work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does >>>>>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which >>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>> belong to which. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to >>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>> more than what the good reason requires. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% >>>>>>> is an >>>>>>> inaccurate result. >>>>>> >>>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >>>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >>>>>> even looking at them. >>>>> >>>>> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"? >> >> *Quoted from below, thus already asnwered* > > False. The tihing about "looking" in quotations below is that I said > "That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction", > which is not an answer to the question aboe. > >> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of >> cases is that they said I was wrong and >> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever >> about how and why I was wrong. > > That is a kind of answer to the question. However it also means that > your method is not sound. > That people guess that I am wrong proves that I am wrong? Not once in three years was any actual error ever pointed out. All of the replies that weren't some kind of flat out dishonesty were entirely based on the fact that my view differs from the conventional view. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 11:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10fk42j$25erv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135987 |
On 2025-11-18 15:51:43 +0000, olcott said: > On 11/18/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-11-17 13:44:05 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 11/17/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-16 20:37:07 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their review on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either right or >>>>>>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't have seen >>>>>>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or "looks >>>>>>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something >>>>>>>>>>>> takes more time and work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does >>>>>>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words >>>>>>>>>> belong to which. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without >>>>>>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject >>>>>>>>>> more than what the good reason requires. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an >>>>>>>> inaccurate result. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >>>>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >>>>>>> even looking at them. >>>>>> >>>>>> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"? >>> >>> *Quoted from below, thus already asnwered* >> >> False. The tihing about "looking" in quotations below is that I said >> "That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction", >> which is not an answer to the question aboe. >> >>> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of >>> cases is that they said I was wrong and >>> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever >>> about how and why I was wrong. >> >> That is a kind of answer to the question. However it also means that >> your method is not sound. >> > > That people guess that I am wrong proves that I am wrong? Irrelevant to my message and to the message I was respondig to. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 07:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fkf4r$28e73$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136065 |
On 11/19/2025 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-11-18 15:51:43 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 11/18/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-11-17 13:44:05 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 11/17/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-16 20:37:07 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their review on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either right or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have seen >>>>>>>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious >>>>>>>>>>>>> errors" or "looks >>>>>>>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check >>>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>> takes more time and work. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does >>>>>>>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear >>>>>>>>>>> which words >>>>>>>>>>> belong to which. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom >>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea >>>>>>>>>>> to reject >>>>>>>>>>> more than what the good reason requires. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>>>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then >>>>>>>>> 99% is an >>>>>>>>> inaccurate result. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >>>>>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >>>>>>>> even looking at them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"? >>>> >>>> *Quoted from below, thus already asnwered* >>> >>> False. The tihing about "looking" in quotations below is that I said >>> "That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction", >>> which is not an answer to the question aboe. >>> >>>> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of >>>> cases is that they said I was wrong and >>>> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever >>>> about how and why I was wrong. >>> >>> That is a kind of answer to the question. However it also means that >>> your method is not sound. >>> >> >> That people guess that I am wrong proves that I am wrong? > > Irrelevant to my message and to the message I was respondig to. > If for any reason you say my method is unsound you are factually incorrect. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251119094843.567@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136077 |
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > If for any reason you say my method is unsound > you are factually incorrect. What is unsound is your mental health. You do not actually anything identifiable as a method, in your madness. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 10:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10fmi9b$2qa1s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136077 |
On 2025-11-19 13:02:18 +0000, olcott said: > On 11/19/2025 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-11-18 15:51:43 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 11/18/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-17 13:44:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 11/17/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-16 20:37:07 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their review on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either right or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't have seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or "looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes more time and work. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does >>>>>>>>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words >>>>>>>>>>>> belong to which. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without >>>>>>>>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject >>>>>>>>>>>> more than what the good reason requires. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>>>>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an >>>>>>>>>> inaccurate result. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >>>>>>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >>>>>>>>> even looking at them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"? >>>>> >>>>> *Quoted from below, thus already asnwered* >>>> >>>> False. The tihing about "looking" in quotations below is that I said >>>> "That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction", >>>> which is not an answer to the question aboe. >>>> >>>>> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of >>>>> cases is that they said I was wrong and >>>>> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever >>>>> about how and why I was wrong. >>>> >>>> That is a kind of answer to the question. However it also means that >>>> your method is not sound. >>>> >>> >>> That people guess that I am wrong proves that I am wrong? >> >> Irrelevant to my message and to the message I was respondig to. > > If for any reason you say my method is unsound > you are factually incorrect. I'm not if your method is unsound. And it is if your answer is true. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 13:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10fdfjp$ds0j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135773 |
On 11/16/2025 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their >>>>>>>> review on >>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do this. >>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either >>>>>>>> right or >>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't >>>>>>> have seen >>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or >>>>>>> "looks >>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something >>>>>>> takes more time and work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does >>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it. >>>>> >>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words >>>>> belong to which. >>>>> >>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without >>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject >>>>> more than what the good reason requires. >>>> >>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>> >>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an >>> inaccurate result. >> >> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >> even looking at them. > > How did you determine "without eve looking at them"? > Olcott, the parrot is not dead, its stunned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112102726.139@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135434 |
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not > begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] > is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this > in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence which contradicts your set view in any matter. Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. Anyway, that /is/ the right approach toward anything. Anything anyone says should be suspected of having a factual or logical flaw, until proven otherwise. Here is an idea for you: maybe try being right 95% of the time, for a while. Say two weeks, or a month. Instead of your usual, 95%+ wrong. There is a human bias at play here and I will explain it to you: people are more motivated to respond when you are wrong. If you're 80% wrong, the 0.8 fraction of your remarks that is wrong will get more engagement than the 0.2 that are right. Thus it might be that, among those of your remarks which fetch engagement, the fraction which are wrong might be amplified to something much higher, like 0.97. This is why social networking algorithms are rigged to spread rage bait: to drum up engagement. It's amazing you don't have the maturity to know all this on your own; that it has to be explained to a grown up. Most of us here struggle not to say an incorrect thing. in a comp.* newsgroup or elsewhere, yet here you practically made a sport out of it; you say some wrong shit more times in a day than an NBA player takes a shot at the hoop. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f2l1h$1l3bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135437 |
On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. > > Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence > which contradicts your set view in any matter. > Not at all. Not ever. > Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times > someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that > everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. > People on these forums have only agreed with me at most 1% of the time and the only case besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. You are still trying to get away with the utter nonsense that once correct non-termination behavior criteria have been correctly met that you can try again and get a different result. I would really like to think that you are not a damned liar, yet no alternative seems reasonably plausible. > Anyway, that /is/ the right approach toward anything. Anything anyone > says should be suspected of having a factual or logical flaw, until > proven otherwise. > Not when the basis of proof requires them to actually pay close attention when they are utterly unwilling to do this because they are so sure that I must be wrong. > Here is an idea for you: maybe try being right 95% of the time, for a > while. Say two weeks, or a month. Instead of your usual, 95%+ wrong. > I have been completely right on the essence of what I have been saying for 22 years. > There is a human bias at play here and I will explain it to you: > people are more motivated to respond when you are wrong. OK some honesty, that it refreshing. > If you're 80% wrong, the 0.8 fraction of your remarks that is > wrong will get more engagement than the 0.2 that are right. > Thus it might be that, among those of your remarks which fetch > engagement, the fraction which are wrong might be amplified to > something much higher, like 0.97. > > This is why social networking algorithms are rigged to spread > rage bait: to drum up engagement. > > It's amazing you don't have the maturity to know all this on your own; > that it has to be explained to a grown up. > It is a verified fact that I have been continually correct in every essence that I have said for 22 continuous years. Now I have LLM systems that show the complete details of exactly how and why I am correct. If they were simply "yes men" they could not possibly do this. > Most of us here struggle not to say an incorrect thing. in a comp.* > newsgroup or elsewhere, yet here you practically made a sport out of it; > you say some wrong shit more times in a day than an NBA player takes a > shot at the hoop. > I say things that do not conform to conventional wisdom and people here don't even understand the reasoning behind conventional wisdom. When I point out the error in this reasoning people here are utterly helpless. The most they can do is say that I must be wrong entirely on the basis that I contradict conventional wisdom. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112182547.309@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135439 |
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>
>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence
>> which contradicts your set view in any matter.
>
> Not at all. Not ever.
Even now, in this post.
>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times
>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that
>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you.
>
> People on these forums have only agreed with
> me at most 1% of the time and the only case
1% is much larger than zero.
> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities.
Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's
all you get.
For me, it's a triviality that your H's are deciding the D's
wrongly, but at that point we go over your head.
> You are still trying to get away with the utter
> nonsense that once correct non-termination
> behavior criteria have been correctly met
your criteria cannot decide the fact that the NON-DIAGONAL
test case void DDD(void) { HHH(DDD); return; } terminates.
The 1 return value is correct, and HHH(DDD) /can/ return it.
DDD will not "behave opposite"; it will terminate as the 1 says.
> that you can try again and get a different
> result. I would really like to think that
> you are not a damned liar, yet no alternative
> seems reasonably plausible.
Right; no alternative even seems plausible, like that:
- Turing was right;
- Church was right;
- Goedel was right;
- C. A. R. Hore was right;
- P. Olcott was wrong;
....
Nah, cannot be! Not even /plausible/ seeming.
>> Anyway, that /is/ the right approach toward anything. Anything anyone
>> says should be suspected of having a factual or logical flaw, until
>> proven otherwise.
>>
>
> Not when the basis of proof requires them
> to actually pay close attention when they
> are utterly unwilling to do this because they
> are so sure that I must be wrong.
You have a small body of claims that you have repeated for years.
The claims have been examined in excruciating detail by all
your interlocutors.
You have /never/ responded to any criticism. You will not analyze
any rebuttal, look at any code, nothing.
Just casual dismissals, accusations of lying, stupidity, ...
>> Here is an idea for you: maybe try being right 95% of the time, for a
>> while. Say two weeks, or a month. Instead of your usual, 95%+ wrong.
>
> I have been completely right on the essence of
> what I have been saying for 22 years.
L'essence; that's French for "gas".
>> There is a human bias at play here and I will explain it to you:
>> people are more motivated to respond when you are wrong.
>
> OK some honesty, that it refreshing.
>
>> If you're 80% wrong, the 0.8 fraction of your remarks that is
>> wrong will get more engagement than the 0.2 that are right.
>> Thus it might be that, among those of your remarks which fetch
>> engagement, the fraction which are wrong might be amplified to
>> something much higher, like 0.97.
>>
>> This is why social networking algorithms are rigged to spread
>> rage bait: to drum up engagement.
>>
>> It's amazing you don't have the maturity to know all this on your own;
>> that it has to be explained to a grown up.
>>
>
> It is a verified fact that I have been continually
Verified by what third party? Oh, you mean Claude AI and Chat GPT?
Your casual dismissals and personal attacks do not verify anything.
Get someone with serious academic credentials to "validate"
your shit, then talk.
> Now I have LLM systems that show the complete details
> of exactly how and why I am correct. If they were
> simply "yes men" they could not possibly do this.
The commercially available LLM systems provided by Anthropic,
OpenAI and others all have system prompts telling them not to
antagonize the user.
An extremely common complaint (probably in the top five)
is that they are "sycophantic".
>> Most of us here struggle not to say an incorrect thing. in a comp.*
>> newsgroup or elsewhere, yet here you practically made a sport out of it;
>> you say some wrong shit more times in a day than an NBA player takes a
>> shot at the hoop.
>>
>
> I say things that do not conform to conventional
> wisdom and people here don't even understand the
> reasoning behind conventional wisdom.
>
> When I point out the error in this reasoning people
> here are utterly helpless. The most they can do is
> say that I must be wrong entirely on the basis
> that I contradict conventional wisdom.
You do not contradict conventional wisdom; you contradict
air-tight logic.
Conventional wisdom is shit like "eating carrots makes you
see sharper".
Incomputability of halting is entirely unconventional; it took
someone very smart to recognize the problem and answer it.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f3hec$1siq5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135457 |
On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>> >>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >> >> Not at all. Not ever. > > Even now, in this post. > >>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >> >> People on these forums have only agreed with >> me at most 1% of the time and the only case > > 1% is much larger than zero. > >> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. > > Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's > all you get. > You are not following the actual reasoning of the paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. That is not you pointing out an error. You don't even know what a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence of an expression is so you lack any basis to critique this. IT IS NOT a triviality. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112190712.297@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135460 |
On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>>>
>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence
>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter.
>>>
>>> Not at all. Not ever.
>>
>> Even now, in this post.
>>
>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times
>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that
>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you.
>>>
>>> People on these forums have only agreed with
>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case
>>
>> 1% is much larger than zero.
>>
>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities.
>>
>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's
>> all you get.
>>
>
> You are not following the actual reasoning of the
> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong.
> That is not you pointing out an error.
That's what you did to my code.
I'm categorically rejecting your paper because it
is AI slop that takes /zero/ effort to generate,
but /nonzero/ effort to go through and validate.
AI generation is a denial-of-service attack
on people's attention.
> You don't even know what a cycle in the directed
> graph of the evaluation sequence of an expression
> is so you lack any basis to critique this.
On the contrary, I have designed a lazy evaluating language
feature that detects cycles in evaluation.
Live demo:
Let's start with a good case: z depends on x,
x depends on y, and y is just 42:
1> (mlet ((z (* 2 x))
(y 42)
(x (+ 1 y)))
(list x y z))
(43 42 86)
This mlet (magic let, mutual let) construct lets
you specify mutually dependent variables in any order.
Now, what if y depends on z? Like y = z / 2?
2> (mlet ((z (* 2 x))
(y (/ z 2))
(x (+ 1 y)))
(list x y z))
** expr-1:1: force: recursion forcing delayed form (+ 1 y) (expr-1:3)
The purpose of mlet isn't do to arithmetic formulas in hard-to-follow orders;
it's not that sort of shits and giggles.
What it does is let you instantiate self-referential data structures.
We turn on circle notation to catch structures with shared substructure
including cycles, like circular lists:
1> (set *print-circle* t)
t
Now, this is the wrong way to try to make the infinite circular
list (0 1 0 1 0 ...):
2> (mlet ((x (cons 0 y))
(y (cons 1 x)))
x)
** expr-2:1: force: recursion forcing delayed form (cons 0 y) (expr-2:1)
We need to use the lazy version of cons, the lcons macro, together
with mlet:
2> (mlet ((x (lcons 0 y))
(y (lcons 1 x)))
x)
#1=(0 1 . #1#)
The notation #1=(0 1 . #1#) represents the circular list It
has two nodes 0 and 1, and a final CDR field pointing back to the
first cell.
We can turn off the circle notation and take sublists of the list:
3> (set *print-circle* nil)
nil
4> (mlet ((x (lcons 0 y))
(y (lcons 1 x)))
[x 0..20])
(0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1)
5> (mlet ((x (lcons 0 y))
(y (lcons 1 x)))
[x 0..30])
(0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1)
Self-reference or mutual reference is very useful in lazy computing,
and the construction of both circular structure and lazy structures,
without explicit assignment.
What have you developed other than taking someone else's x86 simulator and
adding a bit of code around it?
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f3nks$1u2dv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135461 |
On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>> >>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >>>> >>>> Not at all. Not ever. >>> >>> Even now, in this post. >>> >>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >>>> >>>> People on these forums have only agreed with >>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case >>> >>> 1% is much larger than zero. >>> >>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. >>> >>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's >>> all you get. >>> >> >> You are not following the actual reasoning of the >> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. >> That is not you pointing out an error. > > That's what you did to my code. > Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion stops when you monkey with it. > I'm categorically rejecting your paper because it > is AI slop that takes /zero/ effort to generate, > but /nonzero/ effort to go through and validate. > You cannot show evidence of that. Do you know what a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence of a formal expression is? Mikko didn't have a clue and claimed that I am wrong anyway. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251113003331.324@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135465 |
On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. Not ever. >>>> >>>> Even now, in this post. >>>> >>>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >>>>> >>>>> People on these forums have only agreed with >>>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case >>>> >>>> 1% is much larger than zero. >>>> >>>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. >>>> >>>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's >>>> all you get. >>>> >>> >>> You are not following the actual reasoning of the >>> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. >>> That is not you pointing out an error. >> >> That's what you did to my code. >> > > Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion > stops when you monkey with it. You're welcome to point of what exactly you mean by "monkey" and which lines of code are doing that. Which bits am I flipping that constitute monkeying? Remember, the code takes the state of an abandoned simulation /exactly/ as it was left by HHH (or whichever decider) And then it steps that simulation forward in exactly the correct way, the same way that HHH previously stepped it: it passes precisely the correct slave_state, and other arguments, to DebugStep. The code does not manipulate the content of slave_state other than stepping it with DebugStep (your function, the same one used by HHH). Between the time HHH abandoned the simulation, and the new dcode starts stepping it again, nothing has touched slave_state or slave_stack. So again, what is monkeying and where is it happening? You've had several weeks to Back up your claim ... and nothing. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f4u2j$287ph$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135476 |
On 11/13/2025 2:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>>>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all. Not ever. >>>>> >>>>> Even now, in this post. >>>>> >>>>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>>>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>>>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >>>>>> >>>>>> People on these forums have only agreed with >>>>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case >>>>> >>>>> 1% is much larger than zero. >>>>> >>>>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. >>>>> >>>>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's >>>>> all you get. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are not following the actual reasoning of the >>>> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. >>>> That is not you pointing out an error. >>> >>> That's what you did to my code. >>> >> >> Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion >> stops when you monkey with it. > > You're welcome to point of what exactly you mean by "monkey" and which > lines of code are doing that. > Once D simulated by H correctly matches its correct non-halting behavior pattern doing anything besides aborting the simulation and rejecting the input is cheating. > Which bits am I flipping that constitute monkeying? > > Remember, the code takes the state of an abandoned simulation > /exactly/ as it was left by HHH (or whichever decider) > > And then it steps that simulation forward in exactly the correct way, > the same way that HHH previously stepped it: it passes precisely the > correct slave_state, and other arguments, to DebugStep. > > The code does not manipulate the content of slave_state other than > stepping it with DebugStep (your function, the same one used by HHH). > Between the time HHH abandoned the simulation, and the new dcode > starts stepping it again, nothing has touched slave_state or > slave_stack. > > So again, what is monkeying and where is it happening? > > You've had several weeks to Back up your claim ... and nothing. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251113103022.598@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135497 |
On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/13/2025 2:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion >>> stops when you monkey with it. By the way, it is mostly your code, and someone elses x86utm. >> You're welcome to point of what exactly you mean by "monkey" and which >> lines of code are doing that. > > Once D simulated by H correctly matches its correct > non-halting behavior pattern doing anything besides > aborting the simulation and rejecting the input is cheating. Essentially, as the Crowned King of Halting, you are just /decreeing/ an edict making it illegal to gather evidence as to whether H made the correct decision. Evidence such as looking at the bits H left behind to see whether they really comprise the state of non-terminating simulation. And you think that is how you conduct CS research; like that's how it works in academia? Moreover, you bemoan people who are "closed-minded" and cling to "conventional wisdom" by which they assume you are wrong; yet if those people just accepted arbitrary rules about what they may or may not investigate, to avoid producing results displeasing to the King, then they are fine intellectuals. I don't see what remaining conversation is to be had here. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fcrjm$2nun$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135465 |
Am Wed, 12 Nov 2025 22:43:06 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion stops when you > monkey with it. Nothing of the sort if happening. The simulation is only paused. >> I'm categorically rejecting your paper because it is AI slop that takes >> /zero/ effort to generate, but /nonzero/ effort to go through and >> validate. > You cannot show evidence of that. You said so yourself. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f5rvt$2hh2s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135434 |
On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
Noisy:
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>> unsound.
Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of
your paper I think the above needs to be addressed.
We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true"
We have a sentence about it:
"This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
semantically unsound.
And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but
using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out:
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only
because the inner sentence is semantically unsound.
but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to:
["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
semantically unsound] is not true
in there we still have the foremost interesting
outie-de-bruijn-ish-innie reference "the inner sentence" which I suppose
therein refers to the referent of the unique syntactically most
contained nominal phrase that references a sentence, to wit, the
referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
then the whole says it's not true that some purported semantic
unsoundness of what that reference refers to is the sole basis for
inferring some unstated notion of nontruth about the referent of "This
sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
Have I understood what you're saying, minister?
[Why "minister", see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVO85anasrA ]
>> The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
I very much doubt that but you filled my head with noise. Does your
Noisy (above) really constrain "This sentence is not true" such that
your MTT formalisation of it is accurate? You should be noiselessly
patient, so I should expect so, but I'd like to read that you think it
was all suitably constraining wordage before I think any further because
I think it's not an accurate formalisation ("encoding").
More pedestrianly: Is := symmetric? ie, does A := B entail B := A and B
:= A entail A := B (in the formation rules of sentences of MTT from
other sentences of MTT)?
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>
>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>> elaborated in the paper?
No: it is an AI chatlog which is shit.
> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
I typically begin "everyone is wrong, but /how/ exactly" until I can't
justify my premise any more. Then I stay quiet until I wake up suddenly
realising someone was particularly right in some small way, then I
begrudgingly ackowledge that publically, and encourage the other wrong
people to find a way to correct my temporary wrong-blindness.
That is on the basis that of all the things that can be said almost none
of them are right with just a few exceptional isolated points dotted around.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f5u3v$2i01d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135518 |
On 11/13/2025 6:09 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> Noisy:
>
>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>> unsound.
>
> Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of
> your paper I think the above needs to be addressed.
>
> We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true"
> We have a sentence about it:
>
> "This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
> semantically unsound.
>
> And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but
> using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out:
>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only
> because the inner sentence is semantically unsound.
>
> but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to:
>
> ["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
> semantically unsound] is not true
>
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.
You can't put the quotes in a different place without changing
the semantics.
Here is "This sentence is not true" is semantically
unsound in Prolog:
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
> in there we still have the foremost interesting
> outie-de-bruijn-ish-innie reference "the inner sentence" which I suppose
> therein refers to the referent of the unique syntactically most
> contained nominal phrase that references a sentence, to wit, the
> referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
>
Its an example of not needing a separate object
language and meta-language that Tarski says is
required.
> then the whole says it's not true that some purported semantic
> unsoundness of what that reference refers to is the sole basis for
> inferring some unstated notion of nontruth about the referent of "This
> sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
>
>
> Have I understood what you're saying, minister?
>
> [Why "minister", see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVO85anasrA ]
>
>
>>> The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>
> I very much doubt that but you filled my head with noise. Does your
> Noisy (above) really constrain "This sentence is not true" such that
> your MTT formalisation of it is accurate? You should be noiselessly
> patient, so I should expect so, but I'd like to read that you think it
> was all suitably constraining wordage before I think any further because
> I think it's not an accurate formalisation ("encoding").
>
>
> More pedestrianly: Is := symmetric? ie, does A := B entail B := A and B
> := A entail A := B (in the formation rules of sentences of MTT from
> other sentences of MTT)?
>
>
>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>
>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>> elaborated in the paper?
>
> No: it is an AI chatlog which is shit.
>
It is all my words and my ideas and Claude AI's
assessment of them. Unlike anyone anywhere else
LLMs do demonstrate the functional equivalent
of deep understanding of the notion of:
cycles in the directed graph of evaluation sequence
of a formal expression
Everyone here says I am wrong I am wrong and I am
wrong never understanding a single word that I said.
>
>
>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>
> I typically begin "everyone is wrong, but /how/ exactly" until I can't
> justify my premise any more. Then I stay quiet until I wake up suddenly
> realising someone was particularly right in some small way, then I
> begrudgingly ackowledge that publically, and encourage the other wrong
> people to find a way to correct my temporary wrong-blindness.
>
> That is on the basis that of all the things that can be said almost none
> of them are right with just a few exceptional isolated points dotted around.
>
>
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
>
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f5v3s$2i47m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135521 |
On 14/11/2025 00:45, olcott wrote: > On 11/13/2025 6:09 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> Noisy: >> >>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically >>>> unsound. >> >> Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of >> your paper I think the above needs to be addressed. >> >> We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true" >> We have a sentence about it: >> >> "This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is >> semantically unsound. >> >> And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but >> using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out: >> >> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only >> because the inner sentence is semantically unsound. >> >> but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to: >> >> ["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is >> semantically unsound] is not true >> > > This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true. > You can't put the quotes in a different place without changing > the semantics. You haven't tried to understand what I wrote. You have just guessed at a response. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web