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 β Β¬Prov(βGβ) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G β Β¬Prov(βGβ) 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 β Β¬Prov(βGβ) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G β Β¬Prov(βGβ) 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 β Β¬Prov(βGβ) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:13 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G β Β¬Prov(βGβ) 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 β Β¬Prov(βGβ) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G β Β¬Prov(βGβ) 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 13 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 23 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 04:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122201158.855@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136270 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2025 11:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2025 10:45 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly
>>>>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate
>>>>>> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any
>>>>>> proposition with an indeterminate truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever decider
>>>>> H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly
>>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the behavior of D depends on the return
>>>>> value of H and D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>> H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question
>>>>> that lacks a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar
>>>> Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a
>>>> contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five
>>>> contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there
>>>> is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value.
>>>>
>>>>> Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer
>>>>> is isomorphic to this question:
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0.
>>>> It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words"
>>>> in "This sentence has four words".
>>>
>>> Neither return value is correct because D does
>>
>> No, since 0 is incorrect, 1 is correct.
>> D() terminates.
>>
>>> the opposite of whatever value is returned just
>>> like "This sentence is not true" is true if it
>>
>> No, it is a bit like 'This sentence has four words".
>> The claim made by the sentence is incorrect;
>> the correct claim is five.
>>
>>> is not true and not true if it is true, thus
>>> it is neither true nor false therefore not a
>>> proposition.
>>
>> No such thng is going on in the H(D) case. H(D) returns false. D() then
>> terminates.
>>
>> It is we, the outside observer, who remark that H(D)'s return value
>> doesn't match the D behavior.
>>
>> But we are not part of the test case.
>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>>>>> What correct Boolean value should H return to D?
>>>>
>>>> The correct value is 1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> int D()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>
>> Here we can replace H(D) by 0 without changing D because
>> we know that term has that value. This is a valid mathematical
>> substitution.
>>
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> You know that you are lying about this. Does that
>>> give you a cheap thrill?
>>
>> You yourself know that D() returns at that UTM(D) returns 1.
>
> You know that "this sentence is not true" is true
> if it is not true and not true if it is true,
> likewise H(D) is wrong no matter what it returns.
Being certain that H(D) is wrong is completelly different from not being
able to pin a Boolean value onto a proposition.
It's a long and rocky road from "completely different" to "isomorphic".
--
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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122201022.812@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136260 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>> With the halting problem counter example input >>> where input D does the opposite of whatever >>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly >>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. >> >> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate >> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any >> proposition with an indeterminate truth value. >> > > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever decider > H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly But, you wrote this earier today: PO> D and H are the generic template. PO> DD and HHH are the physical implementation. A "generic template" is not a decider; H is not a decider. That's one of the sources of your confusion. Your mind fluidly equivocates between concrete functions and the template recipes that generate their form. -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 20:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10frdbr$6apf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136242 |
On 11/21/25 7:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > >> On 11/20/25 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>>>>> >>>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >>>>> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >>>>> problem altogether. >>>>> >>>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory >>>>> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are >>>>> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >>>>> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >>>>> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >>>>> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >>>>> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >>>>> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a >>>>> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >>>>> order to believe this). >>>> >>>> literally his words: >>>> >>>> we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, >>>> ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied >>>> with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into >>>> sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any >>>> moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol T(r)vwhich >>>> is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The >>>> symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The >>>> "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, >>>> "directly aware" [Tur36] >>> Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, >> >> several times end to end??? > > Yes. I taught this material at a UK university for many years. > >> i'm smelling some bs my dude, sorry bout that, but i'm going to >> have quote turing a bunch to show how ur quite mistaken about the paper. >> >> i haven't read the paper thoroughly end to end. i've only read certain sections thoroughly and >> skimmed it end to end. most of my focus has into specifically Β§8, and have read that *very* >> thoroughly. i then skimmed the rest of the paper concentration specifically on how the results >> of of Β§8 are used to justify conclusions in the following sections. i've mostly ignored before >> Β§8 since he was mostly just constructing turing machines, but have a rough idea what's going >> on. > > And you *haven't* read it thoroughly end to end??? i'm really good at focusing on key details. i have to be. i live in such an info saturated world it's a requirement to not go insane. i don't have qualms with most of his paper, so i don't need to know it ... there's a very key point i'm targeting and that's where my focus has been. i'm not perfect, nor do i have to be... just more informed than you, so i'm going to quote turing at you into submission if need be > >>> working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a >>> mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. >>> >>>> idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's weird to >>>> claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of being >>>> specific about it. >>> He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person >>> who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He >>> knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing >>> mathematical results about mathematical objects. >>> What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems >>> about mathematical objects? >>> >>>>> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >>>>> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >>>>> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >>>>> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >>>>> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever >>>>> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >>>>> cases, even understand it). >>>> >>>> no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, >>> There is no paradox. >> >> i'm gunna say this a million times, eh??? >> >> *the halting paradox is a paradox like how the liar's paradox is a >> paradox* > > I know this is a modern form of proof -- just keep saying it -- but it > remains false. BRUH, the "semantic number" paradox is *also* a paradox like the liar's paradox *is* a paradox turing is considering the case of forming an inverse-diagonal across the computable numbers, much like cantor did with the reals, and found that (naively) just trying to do so forms a "satisfactory number" paradox: - if this diagonal computation (inverse OR direct) decides itself "satisfactory"/"circle-free", then the diagonal gets caught up in an infinite loop of trying to find a digit for itself that doesn't exist, making it "unsatisfactory"; - but if this diagonal decides itself "unsatisfactory"/"circular", then it will skip procuring a digit for itself, not get caught in that loop, and continue on in a "satisfactory" fashion. turing found this true for the inverse diagonal, and also found it true for the direct diagonal as well (which is what we wrote about on p247 *it is a self-referential set-classification paradox just like the liar's paradox, even if not quite so directly intentional* it is in fact more complex than the basic haling paradox does this make sense or will i need to break down p247 line-by-line to someone who apparently taught the class on this??? > >> they work the same way: if you try to "decide" the math object into a set classifying it's >> semantics, then the object will take that classification and defy the classification, making it >> impossible to decide upon. > > No. Every "object" in the input set can be correctly decided. It took "this is sentience is false" is that in the set of true sentences or the set of false sentences??? > me years to get PO to admit the "every instance of the halting problem > has a correct yes/no answer". Even so, he then he went on to deny it > again later. Do you also deny this? not entirely sure what you mean by instances of the halting problem having a correct yes/no answer, but i guarantee you whatever argument ur trying to make there (i have vague suspicions) is not going to apply to the "satisfactory number" paradox that turing actually wrote about. > >>>> they all focus on the halting problem which wasn't what turing specifically >>>> worked on. >>> Since Turing was interested in the mathematics (the >>> Entscheidungsproblem) and not the practicality of what we now call >>> "computing" he rattles off what we now call the halting theorem and a >>> couple of other (to him) trivial results without giving them either a >>> name or much weight, except in that the advance his main goal. >> >> yes, he was using them as building blocks in his proof >> >>>> turing uses a "satisfactory" problem to support godel's incompleteness >>>> not the halting problem, >>> No. I'm not sure what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' problem" because >> >> /A number which is a description number of a circle-free machine will be called a satisfactory >> number. In Β§8 it is shown that there can be no general process for determining whether a given >> number is satisfactory or not/ [Tur36 p241] >> >> after turing spends Β§1-Β§7 defining turing machine, Β§8 is where he proves the "halting theorem" >> as you say. in that proof he's really proving there's no way to prove a number "satisfactory" >> or more technically "circle-free" >> >> big miss there buddy, the "satisfactory" paradox (inability to build a general decider for >> "satisfactory" numbers) he describes Β§8 (on p247) in is literally keystone contradiction he >> bases the rest of his undecidable proof > > This does not explain what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' > problem". What do you mean by that term? Did you mean number rather > than problem? p247 turing disproves that machine D, which can decide whether an input machine computes a "satisfactory number" or not, does not exist. this is the first sentance on the page: /Let us suppose that there is such a process; that is to say, that we can invent a machine π which, when supplied with the S.D of any computing machine π will test this S.D and if π is circular will mark the S.D with the symbol "u" and if it is circle-free will mark it with "s"/ [Tur36 p247] "s" for "satisfactory" "u" for "unsatisfactory" this is the last sentence of the page: /π [the diagonal computation] is circular ["u"], contrary both to what we have found in the last paragraph and to the verdict "s" . Thus both verdicts are impossible and we conclude that there can be no machine π/ [Tur36 p247] That is the keystone contradiction that forms to the base for the rest of his proof: a diagonal computation π that contradicts any verdict of it being in the set of "s" machines or "u" machines > > What did I miss? BRUH: LIAR'S PARADOX IN EXECUTABLE LOGIC > >>> Turing uses the term "satisfactory" only in relation to numbers. >>> However, he is not supporting Godel's incompleteness theorem, he is >> >> he is 100% supporting godel's result >> >> /If the negation of what Godel has shown had been proved, i.e. if, for each U, either U or βU >> is provable, then we should have an immediate solution of the Entscheidungsproblem. For we can >> invent a machine H which will prove consecutively all provable formulae. Sooner or later H will >> reach either U or βU. If it reaches U, then we know that U is provable. If it reaches βU, then, >> since K is consistent (Hilbert and Ackermann, p. 65), we know that U is not provable/ [Tur36 >> p259] >> >> what he's doing is saying that if godel had proven otherwise (to incompleteness) then there'd >> be some machine which would prove all provable formulae > > Yes, but you have done a bit of deceptive edited of this exchange. His > result supports Godel but that was not him aim as you seemed to be > suggesting originally. > >> because of this there must be some method to ensure such isn't construct-able, and ultimately >> Β§11 is tying such a machine to the previously disproveb notion (of Β§8) that a decider D that >> could determine whether a given number is satisfactory: >> >> /We are now in a position to show that the Entscheidungsproblem cannot be solved. Let us >> suppose the contrary. Then there is a general (mechanical) process for determining whether Un(π >> ) is provable. By Lemmas 1 and 2, this implies that there is a process for determining whether >> π ever prints 0, and this is impossible, by Β§8. Hence the Entscheidungsproblem cannot be >> solved/ [Tur26 p262] >> >> yes he is ultimately also disproving the entscheidungsproblem, but he's motivated in doing so >> specifically because it aligns with godel's previous result, and his paper ultimately >> strengthens godel's result, even if the specific method *is* quite >> different > > I don't see how you know his motivation. The support of a well-known > result seems incidental. Anyway, if all we disagree about is his > internal motivation, there can be no factual resolution of the > disagreement. > >>> using what we now call the halting theorem to derive results about >>> computation numbers. In section 11 he says "It should perhaps be >>> remarked what I shall prove is quite different from the well-known >>> results of GΓΆdel". >>> >>>> the halting problem variant was >>>> first described by kleene and/or davis >>> The term was indeed coined later, but the result is right there in the >> >> not just coined later, but also described later. turing specifically tied his support of >> incompleteness to the "satisfactory number" paradox, not halting >> paradox > > No. The halting theorem is there in the paper (but not so named). He > tied his answer to the Entscheidungsproblem to the fact that there is > no method to determine if a number is satisfactory to not (i.e. -- in > modern language -- that there is not TM that can decide halting). which is intimately tied to godel's result > >>> paper along with two proofs. He was inventing the whole subject on the >>> fly so it not surprising that we now use other terms, but a theorem by >>> another name shall smell as sweet. > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10flu7h$2lj49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136138 |
On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>> and only secondarily about computer science. >> >> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around > > No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different > problem altogether. > >> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >> undertake the operations, not set theory > > No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are > entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. > Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was > just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape > alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" > just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine > configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a > set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in > order to believe this). > > The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about > formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of > tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). > This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, > got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever > disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most > cases, even understand it). > also i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 07:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fmh1i$2phq9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136150 |
On 20/11/2025 02:25, dart200 wrote: > i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax That's why we should be describing things in terms of formal systems. There you state the objects, formation rules of objects from objects, predicates that form statements from objects and formation rules of statements from statements, and state the axioms (if any). You construct systems from systems in various ways (embeddings, extensions, and so forth) and your notation is thus explicit. our activity is not new and its solutions are old. -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 02:24 -0800 |
| Subject | "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports |
| Message-ID | <10fmq8g$2ps7h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136168 |
On 11/19/25 11:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 20/11/2025 02:25, dart200 wrote: > >> i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax > > That's why we should be describing things in terms of formal systems. bro every time someone writes a new code base, they are coming up with new terms for a new formal systems... > There you state the objects, formation rules of objects from objects, > predicates that form statements from objects and formation rules of > statements from statements, and state the axioms (if any). You construct > systems from systems in various ways (embeddings, extensions, and so > forth) and your notation is thus explicit. > > our activity is not new and its solutions are old. great now there's n+1 formal systems, care to form n+2? π€‘π (also you bet i plan to define an n+1 with my work ππ) my activity is pretty new i think: (A) i demonstrated a system where the halting problem is confined to the problem of lying about context. it's quite literally a paradox created by an objectively inaccurate computing context, such that no semantic paradox can exist outside the lying context. gunna melt some people's brains when they really figure this one out. polcott thinks he does, but he actually doesn't... yet at least. i have faith π (B) i demonstrated a system where i could (1) make a decision on turing's "satisfactory" paradox formed within the direct-diagonal computation, (2) in a way that could also miraculously avoid a 2nd inverse-diagonalization problem from arising. see, there are actually /two different diagonal problems/ in turing's original proof, and *both* are resolved thru effects of reflective computing. (1) is resolved analogously to the halting problem. (2) however has no analogy in the halting problem there's no way in all his decades has polcott touched upon (2). or eric hehner for that matter. i have produced the only refutation "attempt" that addresses *both* legs in the chain of turing's proof for godel's incompleteness. note: i'm not claiming to target godel's incompleteness more fundamentally yet, if ever... just turing's proof that connects it to general semantic decision making within computing where i'm at: - trying to figure out if the problem of lying about context mentioned in (A) also befuddles (B) the refutation of turing's paper as well. the "satisfactory" paradox involved in turing's proof is again a slightly different semantic conflict than the basic halting paradox, and that may have important nuances in meaning when executed within a liarβs context. idk, haven't yet worked thru it it is worth noting that the liar's context only regresses in regards to problem (1), it wouldn't affect the miraculous refutation of problem (2) should (1) be somehow still resolvable thru reflective computing, or some other yet unthot of mechanism - exploring if people are interested in the notion of isolating semantic paradoxes to an uninteresting realm of reflective computing, that doesn't get in our way of *consistently*, *completely*, and *generally* analyzing the interesting part of reflective computing ...which would be at least as powerful as the current TM paradigm and/or that ignored part. if i can't actually rid computing of the halting problem i intend to fully trivialize it's existence to the point of mere curiosity, instead of it being some "grand understanding to the limited nature of computing", in order to show just how ungodly our practical application of computing has been thus far -- hi, i'm nick! let's end war π
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 14:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports |
| Message-ID | <10fn9a0$30mo5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136179 |
On 20/11/2025 10:24, dart200 wrote: > On 11/19/25 11:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 20/11/2025 02:25, dart200 wrote: >> >>> i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax >> >> That's why we should be describing things in terms of formal systems. > > bro every time someone writes a new code base, they are coming up with > new terms for a new formal systems... That's why it's called "code", encoding. The question is whether they can do it well. >> our activity is not new and its solutions are old. > > great now there's n+1 formal systems, care to form n+2? π€‘π *shrug*. One system, one last human. Good goal dude, well thought ahead. Not. > (also you bet i plan to define an n+1 with my work ππ) good. then you can have a meaningful conversation about it. > my activity is pretty new i think: > > (A) i demonstrated a system where the halting problem is confined to the > problem of lying about context. it's quite literally a paradox created > by an objectively inaccurate computing context, such that no semantic > paradox can exist outside the lying context. gunna melt some people's > brains when they really figure this one out. polcott thinks he does, but > he actually doesn't... yet at least. i have faith π I expect it's standard in places you don't know about. You might find out once you've formalised it and correspondence is easy. Then you can explore it, its consequences and receive its economic value. Maybe even use it as a basis for social events. > (B) i demonstrated a system where i could (1) make a decision on > turing's "satisfactory" paradox formed within the direct-diagonal > computation, (2) in a way that could also miraculously avoid a 2nd > inverse-diagonalization problem from arising. see, there are actually > /two different diagonal problems/ in turing's original proof, and *both* > are resolved thru effects of reflective computing. (1) is resolved > analogously to the halting problem. (2) however has no analogy in the > halting problem There are as many diagonal problems as you care to find. Note that reflective computing can be couched as a simulation in a UTM using a suitable program. So it's probably just more of the same, ultimately. When you've formalised it well and given a neat ontology you can describe the mappings to a UTM, a logic, or a functional language and it'll be pedagogically useful so save the next person the bother. > there's no way in all his decades has polcott touched upon (2). or eric > hehner for that matter. i have produced the only refutation "attempt" > that addresses *both* legs in the chain of turing's proof for godel's > incompleteness. That's interesting. > note: i'm not claiming to target godel's incompleteness more > fundamentally yet, if ever... just turing's proof that connects it to > general semantic decision making within computing > > where i'm at: > > - trying to figure out if the problem of lying about context mentioned > in (A) also befuddles (B) the refutation of turing's paper as well. the > "satisfactory" paradox involved in turing's proof is again a slightly > different semantic conflict than the basic halting paradox, and that may > have important nuances in meaning when executed within a liarβs context. > idk, haven't yet worked thru it It would be good to keep track of your thought process. If you feel you've wasted your time and produced nothing interesting you can produce knowledge about the process that will be pedagogically useful, and you can compare what you've produced against other things that exist and find a satisfying niche in which to occupy yourself. Euler documented his process and dead-ends to an almost unique degree, he lost an eye but gained the pitiful immortality that most men foolishly crave. You can post it to usenet so it can be lost with the archives in a blue-chip buyout or a server crash. That'll be nice. > it is worth noting that the liar's context only regresses in regards to > problem (1), it wouldn't affect the miraculous refutation of problem (2) > should (1) be somehow still resolvable thru reflective computing, or > some other yet unthot of mechanism > > - exploring if people are interested in the notion of isolating semantic > paradoxes to an uninteresting realm of reflective computing, that > doesn't get in our way of *consistently*, *completely*, and *generally* > analyzing the interesting part of reflective computing ...which would be > at least as powerful as the current TM paradigm and/or that ignored part. It's interesting in security and espionage. You should continue if you're on His Majesty's side. > if i can't actually rid computing of the halting problem i intend to > fully trivialize it's existence to the point of mere curiosity, instead > of it being some "grand understanding to the limited nature of computing", It is only interesting in the field of security and computing business planning (which is a kind of security, really). and in fields of use to those. > in order to show just how ungodly our practical application of computing > has been thus far Religion in computing is just an application of security. -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports |
| Message-ID | <10fns68$36nnk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136181 |
On 11/20/25 6:41 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 20/11/2025 10:24, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/19/25 11:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 20/11/2025 02:25, dart200 wrote: >>> >>>> i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax >>> >>> That's why we should be describing things in terms of formal systems. >> >> bro every time someone writes a new code base, they are coming up with >> new terms for a new formal systems... > > That's why it's called "code", encoding. The question is whether they > can do it well. nope, usually to the tune of 2-3 /orders of magnitude/ more complex than the fundamental complexity being solved that's like writing 100-1000 pages of code for something that takes a page of logic to explain on a fundamental level. yes *that* is how birdbrained most of our code it. this is the /industry standard/ where even linux is gunna be 1-2 orders of magnitude overly complex. alan kay has an incredible lecture on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubaX1Smg6pY i wonder if he's still on usenet somewhere ... i do hope i get to chat with him before he's not around anymore π > >>> our activity is not new and its solutions are old. >> >> great now there's n+1 formal systems, care to form n+2? π€‘π > > *shrug*. One system, one last human. Good goal dude, well thought ahead. > Not. > > >> (also you bet i plan to define an n+1 with my work ππ) > > good. then you can have a meaningful conversation about it. > > >> my activity is pretty new i think: >> >> (A) i demonstrated a system where the halting problem is confined to the >> problem of lying about context. it's quite literally a paradox created >> by an objectively inaccurate computing context, such that no semantic >> paradox can exist outside the lying context. gunna melt some people's >> brains when they really figure this one out. polcott thinks he does, but >> he actually doesn't... yet at least. i have faith π > > I expect it's standard in places you don't know about. You might find no, i don't think anyone frames this as a direct problem of lying about context with a definitions for specifically what context is, what the truth it, and what the lie is. the notion of reflective computing itself has been explored in the context of exploring virtualization within turing machine, but i'm unique in using it to resolving the halting problem. > out once you've formalised it and correspondence is easy. Then you can > explore it, its consequences and receive its economic value. Maybe even > use it as a basis for social events. > > > >> (B) i demonstrated a system where i could (1) make a decision on >> turing's "satisfactory" paradox formed within the direct-diagonal >> computation, (2) in a way that could also miraculously avoid a 2nd >> inverse-diagonalization problem from arising. see, there are actually >> /two different diagonal problems/ in turing's original proof, and *both* >> are resolved thru effects of reflective computing. (1) is resolved >> analogously to the halting problem. (2) however has no analogy in the >> halting problem > > There are as many diagonal problems as you care to find. nah see, when people refer to "diagonal" problems in computing they are 99.9% of the time referring to (1) a semantic paradox type problem where some input machine into the decider defies semantic set classification. this is what the halting problem demonstrates. (2) is not a set classification/semantic paradox, and is not analogous to the halting problem. > > Note that reflective computing can be couched as a simulation in a UTM > using a suitable program. So it's probably just more of the same, > ultimately. When you've formalised it well and given a neat ontology you > can describe the mappings to a UTM, a logic, or a functional language > and it'll be pedagogically useful so save the next person the bother. > > >> there's no way in all his decades has polcott touched upon (2). or eric >> hehner for that matter. i have produced the only refutation "attempt" >> that addresses *both* legs in the chain of turing's proof for godel's >> incompleteness. > > That's interesting. > > >> note: i'm not claiming to target godel's incompleteness more >> fundamentally yet, if ever... just turing's proof that connects it to >> general semantic decision making within computing >> >> where i'm at: >> >> - trying to figure out if the problem of lying about context mentioned >> in (A) also befuddles (B) the refutation of turing's paper as well. the >> "satisfactory" paradox involved in turing's proof is again a slightly >> different semantic conflict than the basic halting paradox, and that may >> have important nuances in meaning when executed within a liarβs context. >> idk, haven't yet worked thru it > > It would be good to keep track of your thought process. If you feel > you've wasted your time and produced nothing interesting you can produce > knowledge about the process that will be pedagogically useful, and you > can compare what you've produced against other things that exist and > find a satisfying niche in which to occupy yourself. Euler documented > his process and dead-ends to an almost unique degree, he lost an eye but > gained the pitiful immortality that most men foolishly crave. > > You can post it to usenet so it can be lost with the archives in a > blue-chip buyout or a server crash. That'll be nice. u think someone could buy out all over usenet to suppress?? in terms of anti-fragility, this is about as good as it gets. > > >> it is worth noting that the liar's context only regresses in regards to >> problem (1), it wouldn't affect the miraculous refutation of problem (2) >> should (1) be somehow still resolvable thru reflective computing, or >> some other yet unthot of mechanism >> >> - exploring if people are interested in the notion of isolating semantic >> paradoxes to an uninteresting realm of reflective computing, that >> doesn't get in our way of *consistently*, *completely*, and *generally* >> analyzing the interesting part of reflective computing ...which would be >> at least as powerful as the current TM paradigm and/or that ignored part. > > It's interesting in security and espionage. You should continue if > you're on His Majesty's side. iirc we kicked his majesty's ass out a few hundred years ago >.> > > >> if i can't actually rid computing of the halting problem i intend to >> fully trivialize it's existence to the point of mere curiosity, instead >> of it being some "grand understanding to the limited nature of computing", > > It is only interesting in the field of security and computing business > planning (which is a kind of security, really). and in fields of use to > those. > bruh. "testing" is an *extremely* poor substitute for proper computed proofs guaranteeing semantic correctness. the whole of computing needs to be rewritten with semantic proofs as our guarantees for stability does anyone here not expect a need to replace all the unproven garbage code we've shat out so far??? > > >> in order to show just how ungodly our practical application of computing >> has been thus far > > Religion in computing is just an application of security. > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 20:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports |
| Message-ID | <10fnuaq$3702s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136186 |
On 20/11/2025 20:03, dart200 wrote: > On 11/20/25 6:41 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 20/11/2025 10:24, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/19/25 11:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>>> On 20/11/2025 02:25, dart200 wrote: >>>> >>>>> i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax >>>> >>>> That's why we should be describing things in terms of formal systems. >>> >>> bro every time someone writes a new code base, they are coming up with >>> new terms for a new formal systems... >> >> That's why it's called "code", encoding. The question is whether they >> can do it well. > > nope, usually to the tune of 2-3 /orders of magnitude/ more complex than > the fundamental complexity being solved Mainly because they're using C, C++, Java, Python etc that express things like physical objects, which our intuition allows us to produce rapidly but do not group things close to the analytic reality. Also some of them push features hard that constrain us and add burdens for the purpose of scaling organisations. Then the type systems are often not very good. We seem to push for type systems that are ruinous, even with Idris and Haskell, for example. Usually there's a guy walks into the room, nudges everyone in the wrong direction and 5 years later he starts to turn into a cackling idiot but it's too late, nobody knew at the time he had been selected to nudge everyone as if he knew what he was doing. Be caution when someone passes your team and says "simple" or "one" at you. > that's like writing 100-1000 pages of code for something that takes a > page of logic to explain on a fundamental level. yes *that* is how > birdbrained most of our code it. this is the /industry standard/ where > even linux is gunna be 1-2 orders of magnitude overly complex. linux is way more over-complex than that. ... >> I expect it's standard in places you don't know about. You might find > > no, i don't think anyone frames this as a direct problem of lying about > context with a definitions for specifically what context is, what the > truth it, and what the lie is. That's just ontology. and I bet they get pretty close. > the notion of reflective computing itself has been explored in the > context of exploring virtualization within turing machine, > > but i'm unique in using it to resolving the halting problem. No way. There are many people and there looks to me to have been a netsplit so you don't get to hear about all the things other learners have gone over. >> There are as many diagonal problems as you care to find. > > nah see, when people refer to "diagonal" problems in computing they are > 99.9% of the time referring to (1) a semantic paradox type problem where > some input machine into the decider defies semantic set classification. > this is what the halting problem demonstrates. No, that's just what pretentious people do. Diagonal sounds amazing so they latch onto it. >> You can post it to usenet so it can be lost with the archives in a >> blue-chip buyout or a server crash. That'll be nice. > > u think someone could buy out all over usenet to suppress?? Haha, the irony, as if you didn't know the past. -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 10:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports |
| Message-ID | <10fqcpr$3rsdr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136191 |
On 11/20/25 12:39 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 20/11/2025 20:03, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/20/25 6:41 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 20/11/2025 10:24, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 11/19/25 11:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>>>> On 20/11/2025 02:25, dart200 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax >>>>> >>>>> That's why we should be describing things in terms of formal systems. >>>> >>>> bro every time someone writes a new code base, they are coming up with >>>> new terms for a new formal systems... >>> >>> That's why it's called "code", encoding. The question is whether they >>> can do it well. >> >> nope, usually to the tune of 2-3 /orders of magnitude/ more complex than >> the fundamental complexity being solved > > Mainly because they're using C, C++, Java, Python etc that express > things like physical objects, which our intuition allows us to produce > rapidly but do not group things close to the analytic reality. Also some > of them push features hard that constrain us and add burdens for the > purpose of scaling organisations. > > Then the type systems are often not very good. We seem to push for type > systems that are ruinous, even with Idris and Haskell, for example. > Usually there's a guy walks into the room, nudges everyone in the wrong > direction and 5 years later he starts to turn into a cackling idiot but > it's too late, nobody knew at the time he had been selected to nudge > everyone as if he knew what he was doing. > > Be caution when someone passes your team and says "simple" or "one" at you. > > >> that's like writing 100-1000 pages of code for something that takes a >> page of logic to explain on a fundamental level. yes *that* is how >> birdbrained most of our code it. this is the /industry standard/ where >> even linux is gunna be 1-2 orders of magnitude overly complex. > > linux is way more over-complex than that. > > > ... > > >>> I expect it's standard in places you don't know about. You might find >> >> no, i don't think anyone frames this as a direct problem of lying about >> context with a definitions for specifically what context is, what the >> truth it, and what the lie is. > > That's just ontology. and I bet they get pretty close. well let me know if that assumption manifests in any evidence of someone else dumping the machine description to the tape in an attempt to resolve the halting problem we've explored self-modifying turing machines, which means they must have access to both reading and writing to their machine description... but not machines that use their own machine description to avoid getting setup for a semantic paradox. returning different answers based on context would just not have been anything remotely noticeable at the time, i only thot of it because we use heavily use reflection in debugging > >> the notion of reflective computing itself has been explored in the >> context of exploring virtualization within turing machine, >> >> but i'm unique in using it to resolving the halting problem. > > No way. There are many people and there looks to me to have been a > netsplit so you don't get to hear about all the things other learners > have gone over. i will be curious to hear of any evidence of this either. chatgpts came up with search results, but they were merely associated techniques (like the self-modifying ones i mentioned), not the same actual techniques. > >>> There are as many diagonal problems as you care to find. >> >> nah see, when people refer to "diagonal" problems in computing they are >> 99.9% of the time referring to (1) a semantic paradox type problem where >> some input machine into the decider defies semantic set classification. >> this is what the halting problem demonstrates. > > No, that's just what pretentious people do. Diagonal sounds amazing so > they latch onto it. > i mean, the proof's original form was in a section labeled "application of the diagonal process"... but the paradox analogous to the halting problem wasn't the initial concern he had over in regards to "diagonalization", are you aware of what that problem was? > >>> You can post it to usenet so it can be lost with the archives in a >>> blue-chip buyout or a server crash. That'll be nice. >> >> u think someone could buy out all over usenet to suppress?? > > Haha, the irony, as if you didn't know the past. > yeah but today? -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 23:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <87cy5ci99n.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136150 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>> >>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >> problem altogether. >> >>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>> undertake the operations, not set theory >> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are >> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a >> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >> order to believe this). >> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever >> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >> cases, even understand it). >> > > also i am kinda drowning in everyone's custom obtuse syntax Hmm... I think you are including me in this. What custom syntax of mine is obtuse? I really do like to be clear and understood, so this is not a rhetorical question. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 21:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251117133403.908@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135873 |
On 2025-11-17, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > >>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. > >>>>>> It is not a falsehood. > >>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >>>>> this reason. > >>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf > >>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>> reply you made to my last post. > > >> You have to read it all the way through. > > I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > >> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >> they do not point out any error in my arguments >> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >> need to read my arguments carefully. > > That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though > mathematics were a question of fashion. We recently discussed the word "doctrine" here. An "orthodoxy" is, roughly speaking, a group that holds doctrines, (in one sense of the word, which I think is the intended one). Doctrins are beliefs for which there is rational evidence or logical basis. It is insulting to call the hard work of mathematicians mere doctrine, and to group them into a lump that is called some kind of orthodoxy. There is the possibility that the writer who uses "doctrine" and "orthodoxy" is actually communicating the way /he/ approaches the discipline. I.e. his own results as a mathematician are only doctrine-like beliefs, and so he believes everyone else works that way. Such that two mathematicians could hold opposite beliefs about the same formal system based on the same axioms, and both be right: it's all just doctrine and they happen to belong to different orthodoxies: no biggie! -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fg5as$15eoh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135897 |
On 11/17/25 1:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-17, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >> >>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >> >>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. >> >>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >>>>>> this reason. >> >>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >> >>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >>>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>>> reply you made to my last post. >> >> >>> You have to read it all the way through. >> >> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. >> >>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>> need to read my arguments carefully. >> >> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >> mathematics were a question of fashion. > > We recently discussed the word "doctrine" here. > > An "orthodoxy" is, roughly speaking, a group that holds doctrines, > (in one sense of the word, which I think is the intended one). > > Doctrins are beliefs for which there is rational evidence or > logical basis. > > It is insulting to call the hard work of mathematicians mere doctrine, > and to group them into a lump that is called some kind of orthodoxy. it kinda is on the verge of unquestionable orthodoxy given that someone akin to the status of eric cannot start a proper academic conversation on it > > There is the possibility that the writer who uses "doctrine" and > "orthodoxy" is actually communicating the way /he/ approaches the > discipline. I.e. his own results as a mathematician are only > doctrine-like beliefs, and so he believes everyone else works that way. > Such that two mathematicians could hold opposite beliefs about the > same formal system based on the same axioms, and both be right: > it's all just doctrine and they happen to belong to different > orthodoxies: no biggie! > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 22:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fg6qt$205v$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135899 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > On 11/17/25 1:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-17, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] >>>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>>> need to read my arguments carefully. >>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >>> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >>> mathematics were a question of fashion. >> We recently discussed the word "doctrine" here. >> An "orthodoxy" is, roughly speaking, a group that holds doctrines, >> (in one sense of the word, which I think is the intended one). >> Doctrines are beliefs for which there is [?? no ??] rational evidence >> or logical basis. >> It is insulting to call the hard work of mathematicians mere doctrine, >> and to group them into a lump that is called some kind of orthodoxy. > it kinda is on the verge of unquestionable orthodoxy given that someone > akin to the status of eric cannot start a proper academic conversation on it There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. It is firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable. The Halting Theorem is of the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same fundamentals. When somebody ignorant of this tries to start a "proper academic conversation" about the Halting Theorem, it is only right that the said conversation is nipped in the bud. When somebody knowledgeable does this, it can only be construed as disparagement and insult of the whole body of mathematicians. >> There is the possibility that the writer who uses "doctrine" and >> "orthodoxy" is actually communicating the way /he/ approaches the >> discipline. I.e. his own results as a mathematician are only >> doctrine-like beliefs, and so he believes everyone else works that way. >> Such that two mathematicians could hold opposite beliefs about the >> same formal system based on the same axioms, and both be right: >> it's all just doctrine and they happen to belong to different >> orthodoxies: no biggie! > -- > a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve > basic semantic proofs like halting analysis > please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, > ~ nick -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 22:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fg8j0$16b99$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135900 |
On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. It is > firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable. The Halting Theorem is of > the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same > fundamentals. It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4. It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder than that. It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird, sequence of functions. It really is quite peculiar. You should be commended for finding it so natural, you are among the few. But the many have a stake and will enquire. -- 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 22:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fg93t$205v$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135905 |
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. It is >> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable. The Halting Theorem is of >> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same >> fundamentals. > It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4. > It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder > than that. > It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but > it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird, > sequence of functions. I'm not saying that the Halting Theorem is as easy as 2 + 2 = 4. I'm saying it has the same status in terms of it being unassailable knowledge which it is pointless and insulting to dispute. > It really is quite peculiar. > You should be commended for finding it so natural, you are among the > few. But the many have a stake and will enquire. Enquiry is good. But ignorant assertion of nonsense is not good. > -- > Tristan Wibberley -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 23:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251117150000.116@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135911 |
On 2025-11-17, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. It is >>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable. The Halting Theorem is of >>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same >>> fundamentals. > >> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4. >> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder >> than that. >> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but >> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird, >> sequence of functions. > > I'm not saying that the Halting Theorem is as easy as 2 + 2 = 4. I'm > saying it has the same status in terms of it being unassailable knowledge > which it is pointless and insulting to dispute. > >> It really is quite peculiar. > >> You should be commended for finding it so natural, you are among the >> few. But the many have a stake and will enquire. > > Enquiry is good. But ignorant assertion of nonsense is not good. Enquiry requires not only being prepared to be wrong, and making an active effort to look for reasons you may be wrong. That is the main principle. Asserting something without evidence falls under it because when you do that, you are doing something wrong and must catch that. The only thing you may do with an unevidenced statement is to adopt it as a hypothesis or conjecture, which adds a topic or orientation to the enquiry. And then look for reasons that the conjecture might be false, not only reasons it might be true. -- 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 | 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600 |
| Subject | The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fg9bq$16hf7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135905 |
On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. It is >> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable. The Halting Theorem is of >> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same >> fundamentals. > > > It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4. > It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder > than that. > It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but > it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird, > sequence of functions. > > It really is quite peculiar. > Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise. The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language This sentence is not true. It is not true about what? It is not true about being not true. It is not true about being not true about what? It is not true about being not true about being not true. Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! This is formalized in the Prolog programming language below. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the formalized Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves that the Liar Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been semantically unsound all these years. > > You should be commended for finding it so natural, you are among the > few. But the many have a stake and will enquire. > > > -- > 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 My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <20251117150721.431@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135913 |
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. It is >>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable. The Halting Theorem is of >>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same >>> fundamentals. >> >> >> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4. >> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder >> than that. >> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but >> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird, >> sequence of functions. >> >> It really is quite peculiar. >> > > Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise. No it isn't; not every self reference is Liar Paradox. It is your /conjecture/ that the incomputability of halting somehow contains the Liar Paradox; but it doesn't withstand rational scrutiny. Here is why: Self-reference occurs in the diagonal proof of the Halting Theorem. It is this: the diagonal test case D refers to itself; it passes itself to a decision algorithm. - D is not a logical proposition. D might not even be calculating a Boolean result. - D is not contradicting itself in any way, saying "I am false". It cannot do that because it's not a proposition; it has no truth value, and doesn't assert any truth value. - D does contradict something. The contradiction is something like the one in "This sentence has four words", though not quite. In this analogy, the role of H(D) is the sentence itself: just like H(D) makes an assertion of truth, so does the sentence. The role of D is the word count of the sentence. D contradicts H(D) through its behavior. The word count of the sentence also contradicts that sentence through its "behavior": its property of being five rather than four. The important thing here is that "This sentence has four words" is not the Liar Paradox. > The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language ... even if it were done correctly, wouldn't prove that halting is based on the Liar Paradox. Yes, we can model the Liar Paradox in languages and show how it leads to infinite regress. E.g. Common Lisp: [1]> #1=(not #1#) *** - Program stack overflow. RESET The expression #1=(not #1) is a complete, direct representation of Liar as a Lisp expression. We do not need numerous lines of Prolog. #1=WHATEVER means "read WHATEVER object and associate it with the integer label 1". And then #1# means "do not read an object; instead return a reference to the object previously associated with label 1". This expression is saying exactly "The negation (not) of the expression, which is myself, is true"; i.e. "This esxpression is false". The "Program stack overflow" response in the CLISP implementation of Common Lisp occurs when CLISP tries to traverse the syntax tree of that expression to look for macros to expand. So we don't even get to evaluation. The traversal triggers runaway recursion. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fh4dg$1ce2b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135921 |
On 17/11/2025 23:22, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > The contradiction is something like the one in "This sentence has > four words", though not quite. You're definitely making it difficult, that example sentence is easily seen to be false and so the whole "The contradiction ... " is very wrong even with "... though not quite" added. It's totally off. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web