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 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 03:30 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <d46e8d23813930bbdbf363272960cefb31041dfd.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #135697 |
On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
> > > On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > > > On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
> > > > > Here is one of these self-evident truths
> > > >
> > > > [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
> > > truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
> > > like you just did.
> >
> > I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
> > assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
> >
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int D()
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(D);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> H(D);
> }
>
> When N statements of D are simulated by H
> according to the semantics of the C programming
> language the simulated D cannot reach its own
> simulated "return" statement final halt state
> for any value of N.
Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
> >
> > --
> > 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 | 2025-11-15 13:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10falrl$3nfr1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135701 |
On 11/15/2025 1:30 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Here is one of these self-evident truths
>>>>>
>>>>> [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
>>>> truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
>>>> like you just did.
>>>
>>> I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
>>> assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
>>>
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int D()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> H(D);
>> }
>>
>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>> language the simulated D cannot reach its own
>> simulated "return" statement final halt state
>> for any value of N.
>
> Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
>
A directly executed H(D) no matter where it is executed
from reports on the behavior that its actual input actually
specifies and cannot possibly report on the behavior of its
caller because it has no way to determine what is calling it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 04:04 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <d33d71c95764f059945887336ed78772d3e8cffc.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #135703 |
On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 13:55 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 11/15/2025 1:30 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > > > On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > > > > > On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > Here is one of these self-evident truths
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
> > > > > truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
> > > > > like you just did.
> > > >
> > > > I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
> > > > assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
> > > >
> > >
> > > typedef int (*ptr)();
> > > int HHH(ptr P);
> > >
> > > int D()
> > > {
> > > int Halt_Status = H(D);
> > > if (Halt_Status)
> > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > return Halt_Status;
> > > }
> > >
> > > int main()
> > > {
> > > H(D);
> > > }
> > >
> > > When N statements of D are simulated by H
> > > according to the semantics of the C programming
> > > language the simulated D cannot reach its own
> > > simulated "return" statement final halt state
> > > for any value of N.
> >
> > Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
> >
>
> A directly executed H(D) no matter where it is executed
> from reports on the behavior that its actual input actually
> specifies and cannot possibly report on the behavior of its
> caller because it has no way to determine what is calling it.
The question is: Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D the same? <same or not the same>
You seems to play the same trick again: do something and report another.
Can you faithfully report what you did? Otherwise all discussion is based on lies.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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 | 2025-11-15 14:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10famvc$3no35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135708 |
On 11/15/2025 2:04 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 13:55 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/15/2025 1:30 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here is one of these self-evident truths
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
>>>>>> truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
>>>>>> like you just did.
>>>>>
>>>>> I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
>>>>> assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>
>>>> int D()
>>>> {
>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> H(D);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>>>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>>>> language the simulated D cannot reach its own
>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state
>>>> for any value of N.
>>>
>>> Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
>>>
>>
>> A directly executed H(D) no matter where it is executed
>> from reports on the behavior that its actual input actually
>> specifies and cannot possibly report on the behavior of its
>> caller because it has no way to determine what is calling it.
>
> The question is: Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D the same? <same or not the same>
>
The H(D) called from main() is not the same
as the H(D) called from D() only because they
have different callers.
The halting problem is stupidly wrong to
require H to report on the behavior of its
caller because H has no way to determine
what function called it.
> You seems to play the same trick again: do something and report another.
> Can you faithfully report what you did? Otherwise all discussion is based on lies.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 04:25 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <45ced71a750929947881d2054af16a585c905a1a.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #135711 |
On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 14:14 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 11/15/2025 2:04 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 13:55 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 11/15/2025 1:30 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > > > > > On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Here is one of these self-evident truths
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
> > > > > > > truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
> > > > > > > like you just did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
> > > > > > assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > typedef int (*ptr)();
> > > > > int HHH(ptr P);
> > > > >
> > > > > int D()
> > > > > {
> > > > > int Halt_Status = H(D);
> > > > > if (Halt_Status)
> > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > int main()
> > > > > {
> > > > > H(D);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > When N statements of D are simulated by H
> > > > > according to the semantics of the C programming
> > > > > language the simulated D cannot reach its own
> > > > > simulated "return" statement final halt state
> > > > > for any value of N.
> > > >
> > > > Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
> > > >
> > >
> > > A directly executed H(D) no matter where it is executed
> > > from reports on the behavior that its actual input actually
> > > specifies and cannot possibly report on the behavior of its
> > > caller because it has no way to determine what is calling it.
> >
> > The question is: Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D the same? <same or not the same>
> >
>
> The H(D) called from main() is not the same
> as the H(D) called from D() only because they
> have different callers.
int f1() {
return H(D);
}
int f2() {
return H(D);
}
Do you mean the H(D) in f1,f2 are not necessary the same because they
have different callers? If so, how can we read any program?
> The halting problem is stupidly wrong to
> require H to report on the behavior of its
> caller because H has no way to determine
> what function called it.
The HP simply asks for a halt decider. Whatever the halt decider does is allowed.
If you like some additional restrictions, that is POOP, not the HP.
> > You seems to play the same trick again: do something and report another.
> > Can you faithfully report what you did? Otherwise all discussion is based on lies.
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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 | 2025-11-15 14:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10faovd$3ob15$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135716 |
On 11/15/2025 2:25 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 14:14 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/15/2025 2:04 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 13:55 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2025 1:30 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Here is one of these self-evident truths
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
>>>>>>>> truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
>>>>>>>> like you just did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
>>>>>>> assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> H(D);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>>>>>> language the simulated D cannot reach its own
>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state
>>>>>> for any value of N.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A directly executed H(D) no matter where it is executed
>>>> from reports on the behavior that its actual input actually
>>>> specifies and cannot possibly report on the behavior of its
>>>> caller because it has no way to determine what is calling it.
>>>
>>> The question is: Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D the same? <same or not the same>
>>>
>>
>> The H(D) called from main() is not the same
>> as the H(D) called from D() only because they
>> have different callers.
>
> int f1() {
> return H(D);
> }
>
> int f2() {
> return H(D);
> }
>
> Do you mean the H(D) in f1,f2 are not necessary the same because they
> have different callers? If so, how can we read any program?
>
The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle
that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities
that have all their properties in common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
Even if every single atom of identical twins would be
perfectly identical that they are not in the exact
same location of Cartesian space makes them different.
So like I already said if the caller of H(D) is different
then these are not exactly the same BECAUSE their caller
is different.
>> The halting problem is stupidly wrong to
>> require H to report on the behavior of its
>> caller because H has no way to determine
>> what function called it.
>
> The HP simply asks for a halt decider. Whatever the halt decider does is allowed.
> If you like some additional restrictions, that is POOP, not the HP.
>
>>> You seems to play the same trick again: do something and report another.
>>> Can you faithfully report what you did? Otherwise all discussion is based on lies.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 21:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251115134242.860@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135720 |
On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/2025 2:25 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 14:14 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2025 2:04 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 13:55 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2025 1:30 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is one of these self-evident truths
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
>>>>>>>>> truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
>>>>>>>>> like you just did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
>>>>>>>> assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> H(D);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>>>>>>> language the simulated D cannot reach its own
>>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state
>>>>>>> for any value of N.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A directly executed H(D) no matter where it is executed
>>>>> from reports on the behavior that its actual input actually
>>>>> specifies and cannot possibly report on the behavior of its
>>>>> caller because it has no way to determine what is calling it.
>>>>
>>>> The question is: Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D the same? <same or not the same>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The H(D) called from main() is not the same
>>> as the H(D) called from D() only because they
>>> have different callers.
>>
>> int f1() {
>> return H(D);
>> }
>>
>> int f2() {
>> return H(D);
>> }
>>
>> Do you mean the H(D) in f1,f2 are not necessary the same because they
>> have different callers? If so, how can we read any program?
>>
>
>
> The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle
> that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities
> that have all their properties in common.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
There cannot be two identical functions H and H1,
which differ only in that some other function invokes H but not H1.
Because if they are identical, then H and H1 are just /names/
for the same function.
A function cannot be known by two names H and H1,
such that because it is invoked by one of those names and
not the other, it becomes two functons.
You can perpetrate such fuckery in C by insisting that no two functions
can be the same if they have a different function pointer.
Any serious reasearcher who somehow still insists on using C to model
his thinking would rectify the situation by implementing a comparison
function with the right semantics, which reports that all the
functions that are supposed to be the same are the same.
> Even if every single atom of identical twins would be
> perfectly identical that they are not in the exact
> same location of Cartesian space makes them different.
Your blabbing about twins and Cartesian space is pointless.
If you are using a programming language to model functions, even if you
have two literal copies of the same function distinguished by different
addresses in the running image, you must still ensure that they compare
equal.
Identical twins are distinct individuals with their own experiences,
memories and sense of self, distinct from their twin.
They are not simply distinguished by different locations in space,
but also by a vast number of other state variables.
> So like I already said if the caller of H(D) is different
> then these are not exactly the same BECAUSE their caller
> is different.
This is the blabbing of someone with the mathematical maturity of a
keg of lager.
--
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 | 2025-11-15 16:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fau78$3plo1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135731 |
On 11/15/2025 3:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2025 2:25 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 14:14 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2025 2:04 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 13:55 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 1:30 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:50 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 12:06 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 11:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/11/2025 17:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is one of these self-evident truths
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snipped long thing] No there wasn't. It was a question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I don't use Socratic questioning to state controversial
>>>>>>>>>> truths they are rejected without even glancing at them
>>>>>>>>>> like you just did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I rejected what you posted /because/ it was a question and not an
>>>>>>>>> assertion but I understand your regular challenge.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> H(D);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>>>>>>>> language the simulated D cannot reach its own
>>>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state
>>>>>>>> for any value of N.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D are the same?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A directly executed H(D) no matter where it is executed
>>>>>> from reports on the behavior that its actual input actually
>>>>>> specifies and cannot possibly report on the behavior of its
>>>>>> caller because it has no way to determine what is calling it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is: Is the H(D) in main and the H(D) in D the same? <same or not the same>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The H(D) called from main() is not the same
>>>> as the H(D) called from D() only because they
>>>> have different callers.
>>>
>>> int f1() {
>>> return H(D);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int f2() {
>>> return H(D);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Do you mean the H(D) in f1,f2 are not necessary the same because they
>>> have different callers? If so, how can we read any program?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle
>> that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities
>> that have all their properties in common.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
>
> There cannot be two identical functions H and H1,
> which differ only in that some other function invokes H but not H1.
>
And when someone smacks you in the face with
a Boston cream pie you will insist (with pie
dripping from your face) that there is no pie!
On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...D simulated by H cannot possibly reach
>> its own simulated "return" statement...
>
> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.
>
Do it DOES happen while H is running even though
it DOESN'T happen while H is running.
--
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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 13:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10fapuu$3o8c7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135657 |
On 11/15/2025 5:03 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 14/11/2025 20:09, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-14, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>> >>> They've got better things to do with their time than continually refuting >>> falsehoods which contradict proven basics. >>> >>>> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform >>>> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this >>>> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof. >>> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C >>> >>> Then why are you posting on Usenet, where people aren't writing what you >>> want them to write? Why not stick to these LLM sysems which do reply >>> what you want them to reply? >> >> Because he knows they are bullshit that is programmed to agreew with >> the user if the user persists in fighting through pushback. >> >> The early versions of GPT-4 integrated into Microsoft Edge were >> better! That was programmed to detect argumentative cranks and >> end the conversation. >> >> If was an essential feature that should continue to be implemented >> in new LLM chat agents, in spite of more generous token limits. >> >> Even in paid service, for that matter. >> >> If the user is persisting thorugh more than three or four rounds >> of factual pushback, "This conversation is not productive; perhaps >> I can help you with something else" and that's it. >> >> Cranks like Olcott would get squat all agreement out of that. > > > I had a GPT-3.5 conversation where it kept telling me, in the most > well-convincing authoritative manner, that I must embezzle funds and > spend them on climate causes. It was very explicit, even telling me with > its words, not mine, that I must ignore my "fiduciary duties" and spend > funds I manage on climate causes. It took me about half an hour to > persuade it to concede that I mustn't do that. Really? Wow. God damn man! [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 11:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10f9ing$3dslf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135566 |
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. > LLM systems will look at something that does not conform > to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this > idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof. The idea of correctness LLM's use is that correct neans lexically and syntactically similar what people have said before. Truthfullness is not a part of the meaning. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 09:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fa7ij$3jdf0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135651 |
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. >> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform >> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this >> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof. > > The idea of correctness LLM's use is that correct neans lexically and > syntactically similar what people have said before. Truthfullness is > not a part of the meaning. > https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/04/1089403/large-language-models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why/ They can mix and match from their set of inputs and create new perspectives that did not direct exist in their inputs. -- 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 | 2025-11-15 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10faa3m$3jv01$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135668 |
On 15/11/2025 15:51, olcott wrote: > 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. Like H, they computed (rightly or wrongly) objective identity by the syntax of the specific presentation and rejected. -- 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 | 2025-11-15 11:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fabs2$3kjf9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135678 |
On 11/15/2025 10:35 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 15/11/2025 15:51, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > Like H, they computed (rightly or wrongly) objective identity by the > syntax of the specific presentation and rejected. > No they picked out a single keyword and rejected it on that basis. > -- > 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 | 2025-11-15 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fad5r$3jv01$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135685 |
On 15/11/2025 17:05, olcott wrote about expert reviewers: > they picked out a single keyword and rejected > it on that basis. Which keyword? -- 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 | 2025-11-15 11:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fadtg$3l73f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135688 |
On 11/15/2025 11:27 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 15/11/2025 17:05, olcott wrote about expert reviewers: > >> they picked out a single keyword and rejected >> it on that basis. > > Which keyword? > "halting problem" or "Gödel's incompleteness" > -- > 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 | 2025-11-15 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fafib$3jv01$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135691 |
On 15/11/2025 17:40, olcott wrote: > On 11/15/2025 11:27 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 15/11/2025 17:05, olcott wrote about expert reviewers: >> >>> they picked out a single keyword and rejected >>> it on that basis. >> >> Which keyword? >> > > "halting problem" or "Gödel's incompleteness" Nah, no way! They would need some other word at least. Either way, picking out one or two keywords is merely /how/ they wrongly or rightly derived objective identity. -- 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 | 2025-11-15 12:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fai7f$3meeq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135695 |
On 11/15/2025 12:08 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 15/11/2025 17:40, olcott wrote: >> On 11/15/2025 11:27 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 15/11/2025 17:05, olcott wrote about expert reviewers: >>> >>>> they picked out a single keyword and rejected >>>> it on that basis. >>> >>> Which keyword? >>> >> >> "halting problem" or "Gödel's incompleteness" > > Nah, no way! They would need some other word at least. > > Either way, picking out one or two keywords is merely /how/ they wrongly > or rightly derived objective identity. > The foundations of math, logic and computer science are treated like a religion where any challenges are construed as blasphemy. > -- > 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251115122132.144@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135668 |
On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> 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. That cannot possibly be true; they had to go into it far enough to see the gaping falsehood, and /then/ reject it. That's what makes experts experts. They know their stuff and so can spot something wrong before you can bat an eyelash. /You/ are what is "conventional". You're a bumbling idiot off the street who thinks he is right in matters he has no clue about. Your kind outnumber proper intellectuals /many thousands/ to one, by a conservative estimate. The results of Gödel and Turing are not conventional wisdom; they required unconventional thinking, far removed from the reveries of the average conventional twit. "Conventional wisdom" is stuff like this "if you don't wear your jacket, you will catch pneumonia". -- 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 | 2025-11-15 14:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fapcd$3oei8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135717 |
On 11/15/2025 2:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> 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. > > That cannot possibly be true; they had to go into it far > enough to see the gaping falsehood, and /then/ reject it. > > That's what makes experts experts. They know their stuff and > so can spot something wrong before you can bat an eyelash. > That is not how it went down. They rejected my paper on the basis of its title and did not even glance at any of the words. > /You/ are what is "conventional". You're a bumbling idiot off > the street who thinks he is right in matters he has no clue > about. Your kind outnumber proper intellectuals /many thousands/ to one, > by a conservative estimate. > > The results of Gödel and Turing are not conventional wisdom; > they required unconventional thinking, far removed from > the reveries of the average conventional twit. > > "Conventional wisdom" is stuff like this "if you don't > wear your jacket, you will catch pneumonia". > Conventional wisdom is that this proves undecidability. G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Unconventional wisdom is that this: G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) proves to be semantically ill-founded because it has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop thus preventing evaluation. G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Directed Graph of evaluation sequence 00 ↔ 01 02 01 G 02 ¬ 03 03 Prov 04 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle -- 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 | 2025-11-15 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251115135538.535@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135721 |
On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2025 2:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> 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. >> >> That cannot possibly be true; they had to go into it far >> enough to see the gaping falsehood, and /then/ reject it. >> >> That's what makes experts experts. They know their stuff and >> so can spot something wrong before you can bat an eyelash. >> > > That is not how it went down. > They rejected my paper on the basis of its title > and did not even glance at any of the words. Do you have eye tracking data to back this, or is this just more of your usual guesswork? Were you physically present in the same room? > >> /You/ are what is "conventional". You're a bumbling idiot off >> the street who thinks he is right in matters he has no clue >> about. Your kind outnumber proper intellectuals /many thousands/ to one, >> by a conservative estimate. >> >> The results of Gödel and Turing are not conventional wisdom; >> they required unconventional thinking, far removed from >> the reveries of the average conventional twit. >> >> "Conventional wisdom" is stuff like this "if you don't >> wear your jacket, you will catch pneumonia". >> > > Conventional wisdom is that this proves undecidability. > G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) No, that is very unconventional. The average human has no clue about what that is about. > Unconventional wisdom is that this: G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) > proves to be semantically ill-founded because it > has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation > sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop thus > preventing evaluation. That's just wrong nonsense, stemming from your gaping misunderstanding of Gödel. Gödel's actual sentence asserts that a certain number doesn't have the property that it is a "proof number". That number happens to be the Gödel number of that same sentence. It makes no direct self reference that would manifest itself in an expression graph. Even if it did, it is not an evaluation reference; a statement talking about its own provability is a valid self reference, Just like "This sentence is six words long". The sentence doesn't assert anything about the Boolean value of itself or any constituent, therefore it doesn't create a cycle in the logical evaluation graph. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web