Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #124444 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-10 01:06 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-08-10 22:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 254 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 01:06 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-10 08:37 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:08 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-11 10:20 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 09:54 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-12 12:19 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 07:58 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:11 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:54 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 10:19 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 00:21 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:29 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:35 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 00:25 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 22:07 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 09:20 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 22:49 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 23:08 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:29 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 23:40 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:43 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 23:57 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 11:09 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 00:22 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 11:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 00:51 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:07 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:29 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:44 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:55 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:02 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:28 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:31 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 02:18 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:36 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 19:57 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:05 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 20:23 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 03:02 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:11 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-11 16:51 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:11 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-12 12:24 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 07:37 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-11 15:47 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-11 16:37 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:27 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:08 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 07:21 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 12:24 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:06 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:06 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 13:34 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:02 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 12:30 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:00 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:22 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:31 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:52 +0100
Christmas cards [was: Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 20:32 +0100
Re: Christmas cards [was: Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:26 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:24 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 02:50 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-12 00:45 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-12 04:48 +0100
Re: Christmas cards "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:17 -0700
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-12 14:42 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-12 18:57 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 00:42 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-08-10 18:23 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 20:04 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-08-10 21:36 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 23:07 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 11:26 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 16:32 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 11:43 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 16:51 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:26 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:34 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:36 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:55 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 16:59 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:21 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:24 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:30 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:37 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:44 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:51 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:09 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 19:17 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:24 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:00 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:04 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:32 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:35 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:40 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:42 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:53 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:56 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:07 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:10 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:17 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 22:24 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:34 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 22:50 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:53 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 22:54 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:59 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:54 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:03 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:05 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:08 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:16 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:21 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:01 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:00 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:49 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:28 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:37 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:41 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:44 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:47 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:03 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:24 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 20:51 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 03:27 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:35 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:00 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:06 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:22 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:34 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 22:49 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:46 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:43 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 17:59 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:53 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:54 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 23:12 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:30 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:38 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:44 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:48 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:51 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:56 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:01 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:10 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:12 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:14 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page -- Halting Problem False Assumption olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:14 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page -- Halting Problem False Assumption Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:24 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:55 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:35 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:37 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 02:59 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:13 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 03:48 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:59 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:09 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:16 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:25 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Fatal Mistake of all the HP proofs. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:41 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:52 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 17:28 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:32 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 17:37 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:45 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 17:52 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:55 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:43 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 19:45 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-11 23:47 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 19:03 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-12 00:23 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 19:30 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 20:54 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:20 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-11 21:29 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:26 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:12 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 17:58 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 17:57 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:52 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:01 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-11 10:25 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-12 12:54 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:01 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:01 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:08 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:18 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:31 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:36 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:37 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 18:59 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 21:16 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:19 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 21:28 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:34 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 21:39 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 22:48 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:57 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 23:16 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:52 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:03 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 23:25 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 18:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 18:48 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 18:45 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 21:51 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-13 10:40 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 10:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-13 22:10 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-14 10:42 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:22 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:38 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:47 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:44 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:55 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 20:14 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:23 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:16 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:26 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:27 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 12:46 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:23 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:29 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:34 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:57 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:02 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:06 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:17 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:47 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 13:39 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:01 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 22:50 -0400
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 23:40 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <388f6be97176f7f03f1299f80671cac8d146ccea.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #124722 |
On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2025 10:08 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 8/11/2025 9:49 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 8/11/2025 9:07 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 00:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 11:21 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 10:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 09:11 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 1:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/08/2025 07:06, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Fantastic! Good old Claude, eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I will take you at your word and presume that HHH(DD) does in fact
> > > > > > > > > > > > return 0, which means "(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
> > > > > > > > > > > > abort simulation and return 0." - i.e. Claude tells us DD doesn't halt.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > int DD()
> > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); <=== assigns 0 to Halt_Status
> > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status)
> > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So far so good. Let's see what happens next.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status) <=== if(0) is false, so the if's statement on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > next line is skipped...
> > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Uh-oh; I have a bad feeling about this, but let's see what happens next.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status; <=== DD returns, and therefore halts.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So Claude was wrong after all.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Want to try again? With a 1, maybe?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
> > > > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My proof must be step by step or it cannot be understood.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Until you understand that this is correct on that basis
> > > > > > > > > we cannot proceed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
> > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My method can be applied to defining a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What method?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression x) predicate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will you explain the predicate because it looks like function protocol?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It the same idea as Prolog, except it refutes the Tarski
> > > > > Undefinability theorem and applies to the entire body of
> > > > > human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but how do we solve the basic logic problem:
> > > >
> > > > Q1: What time is it? Yes or no.
> > > >
> > > > Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife?
> > > >
> > > > Q1,Q2 are essentially the same as the halting decider. E.g. we can have H5:
> > > >
> > > > int H5(Problem D5); // H5(D5)==1 iff Problem D5 is true
> > > >
> > > > What should H5(Q1) return?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The ultimate test for a
> > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression e) predicate
> > > is this True("English", "This sentence is not true").
> >
> > I have difficulty to follow. Would you use Q1,Q2 to explain?
> > What should H5(Q1) return? And why?
> >
>
> Both would be ~True.
> It works the same way that Prolog works.
> ~Provable(L,x) means untrue(L,x)
So you mean H5(Q1) should tell us the correct reply to "What time is it" is "no"?
and the correct answer to Q2 is "Jack does not hit his wife"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107d333$2lg0a$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124730 |
On 8/11/2025 10:40 AM, wij wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/11/2025 10:08 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2025 9:49 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 9:07 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 00:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 11:21 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 10:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 09:11 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 1:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/08/2025 07:06, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fantastic! Good old Claude, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will take you at your word and presume that HHH(DD) does in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return 0, which means "(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort simulation and return 0." - i.e. Claude tells us DD doesn't halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); <=== assigns 0 to Halt_Status
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far so good. Let's see what happens next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) <=== if(0) is false, so the if's statement on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> next line is skipped...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh-oh; I have a bad feeling about this, but let's see what happens next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status; <=== DD returns, and therefore halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So Claude was wrong after all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want to try again? With a 1, maybe?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
>>>>>>>>>>> for the mankind and AI?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My proof must be step by step or it cannot be understood.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
>>>>>>>>>> is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand that this is correct on that basis
>>>>>>>>>> we cannot proceed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
>>>>>>>>> for the mankind and AI?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My method can be applied to defining a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What method?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression x) predicate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will you explain the predicate because it looks like function protocol?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It the same idea as Prolog, except it refutes the Tarski
>>>>>> Undefinability theorem and applies to the entire body of
>>>>>> human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but how do we solve the basic logic problem:
>>>>>
>>>>> Q1: What time is it? Yes or no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife?
>>>>>
>>>>> Q1,Q2 are essentially the same as the halting decider. E.g. we can have H5:
>>>>>
>>>>> int H5(Problem D5); // H5(D5)==1 iff Problem D5 is true
>>>>>
>>>>> What should H5(Q1) return?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ultimate test for a
>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression e) predicate
>>>> is this True("English", "This sentence is not true").
>>>
>>> I have difficulty to follow. Would you use Q1,Q2 to explain?
>>> What should H5(Q1) return? And why?
>>>
>>
>> Both would be ~True.
>> It works the same way that Prolog works.
>> ~Provable(L,x) means untrue(L,x)
>
> So you mean H5(Q1) should tell us the correct reply to "What time is it" is "no"?
~True(L,x) does not mean false. Random gibberish is also ~True.
> and the correct answer to Q2 is "Jack does not hit his wife"?
>
Also ~True.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 23:57 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <d49087b2a58d86e1a0a5764c2a97def4ef2e0e48.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #124732 |
On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:43 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2025 10:40 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 8/11/2025 10:08 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 8/11/2025 9:49 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/11/2025 9:07 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 00:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 11:21 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 10:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 09:11 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 1:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/08/2025 07:06, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantastic! Good old Claude, eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take you at your word and presume that HHH(DD) does in fact
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > return 0, which means "(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > abort simulation and return 0." - i.e. Claude tells us DD doesn't halt.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > int DD()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); <=== assigns 0 to Halt_Status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far so good. Let's see what happens next.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status) <=== if(0) is false, so the if's statement on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > next line is skipped...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh-oh; I have a bad feeling about this, but let's see what happens next.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status; <=== DD returns, and therefore halts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Claude was wrong after all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Want to try again? With a 1, maybe?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My proof must be step by step or it cannot be understood.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Until you understand that this is correct on that basis
> > > > > > > > > > > we cannot proceed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
> > > > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My method can be applied to defining a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What method?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression x) predicate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Will you explain the predicate because it looks like function protocol?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It the same idea as Prolog, except it refutes the Tarski
> > > > > > > Undefinability theorem and applies to the entire body of
> > > > > > > human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, but how do we solve the basic logic problem:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Q1: What time is it? Yes or no.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Q1,Q2 are essentially the same as the halting decider. E.g. we can have H5:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > int H5(Problem D5); // H5(D5)==1 iff Problem D5 is true
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What should H5(Q1) return?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The ultimate test for a
> > > > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression e) predicate
> > > > > is this True("English", "This sentence is not true").
> > > >
> > > > I have difficulty to follow. Would you use Q1,Q2 to explain?
> > > > What should H5(Q1) return? And why?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Both would be ~True.
> > > It works the same way that Prolog works.
> > > ~Provable(L,x) means untrue(L,x)
> >
> > So you mean H5(Q1) should tell us the correct reply to "What time is it" is "no"?
>
> ~True(L,x) does not mean false. Random gibberish is also ~True.
>
> > and the correct answer to Q2 is "Jack does not hit his wife"?
> >
>
> Also ~True.
What does ~True mean to Q1,Q2?
How do we use the advanced POOH to solve Q1,Q2 if it says we should ask Prolog predicate?
I think POOH can only return 0 and 1, or no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 11:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107d4j7$2lg0a$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124743 |
On 8/11/2025 10:57 AM, wij wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:43 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/11/2025 10:40 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2025 10:08 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 9:49 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 9:07 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 00:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 11:21 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 10:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 09:11 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 1:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/08/2025 07:06, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fantastic! Good old Claude, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will take you at your word and presume that HHH(DD) does in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return 0, which means "(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort simulation and return 0." - i.e. Claude tells us DD doesn't halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); <=== assigns 0 to Halt_Status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far so good. Let's see what happens next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) <=== if(0) is false, so the if's statement on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next line is skipped...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh-oh; I have a bad feeling about this, but let's see what happens next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status; <=== DD returns, and therefore halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So Claude was wrong after all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want to try again? With a 1, maybe?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the mankind and AI?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My proof must be step by step or it cannot be understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand that this is correct on that basis
>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
>>>>>>>>>>> for the mankind and AI?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My method can be applied to defining a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What method?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression x) predicate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Will you explain the predicate because it looks like function protocol?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It the same idea as Prolog, except it refutes the Tarski
>>>>>>>> Undefinability theorem and applies to the entire body of
>>>>>>>> human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but how do we solve the basic logic problem:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Q1: What time is it? Yes or no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Q1,Q2 are essentially the same as the halting decider. E.g. we can have H5:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int H5(Problem D5); // H5(D5)==1 iff Problem D5 is true
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What should H5(Q1) return?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ultimate test for a
>>>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression e) predicate
>>>>>> is this True("English", "This sentence is not true").
>>>>>
>>>>> I have difficulty to follow. Would you use Q1,Q2 to explain?
>>>>> What should H5(Q1) return? And why?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both would be ~True.
>>>> It works the same way that Prolog works.
>>>> ~Provable(L,x) means untrue(L,x)
>>>
>>> So you mean H5(Q1) should tell us the correct reply to "What time is it" is "no"?
>>
>> ~True(L,x) does not mean false. Random gibberish is also ~True.
>>
>>> and the correct answer to Q2 is "Jack does not hit his wife"?
>>>
>>
>> Also ~True.
>
> What does ~True mean to Q1,Q2?
>
It means that they run to the grocery store
once a week to buy ice cream.
> How do we use the advanced POOH to solve Q1,Q2 if it says we should ask Prolog predicate?
> I think POOH can only return 0 and 1, or no?
>
I cannot explain this to anyone that does not know
what "not true" means.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 00:22 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <40c7821e8f6c344a494c727c453868a2f78771b6.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #124751 |
On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:09 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2025 10:57 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:43 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 8/11/2025 10:40 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 8/11/2025 10:08 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/11/2025 9:49 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 8/11/2025 9:07 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 00:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 11:21 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 10:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 09:11 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 1:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/08/2025 07:06, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantastic! Good old Claude, eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take you at your word and presume that HHH(DD) does in fact
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return 0, which means "(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abort simulation and return 0." - i.e. Claude tells us DD doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > halt.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int DD()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); <=== assigns 0 to Halt_Status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far so good. Let's see what happens next.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status) <=== if(0) is false, so the if's statement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next line is skipped...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh-oh; I have a bad feeling about this, but let's see what happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status; <=== DD returns, and therefore halts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Claude was wrong after all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Want to try again? With a 1, maybe?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My proof must be step by step or it cannot be understood.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Until you understand that this is correct on that basis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My method can be applied to defining a
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What method?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression x) predicate.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Will you explain the predicate because it looks like function protocol?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It the same idea as Prolog, except it refutes the Tarski
> > > > > > > > > Undefinability theorem and applies to the entire body of
> > > > > > > > > human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, but how do we solve the basic logic problem:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Q1: What time is it? Yes or no.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Q1,Q2 are essentially the same as the halting decider. E.g. we can have H5:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > int H5(Problem D5); // H5(D5)==1 iff Problem D5 is true
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What should H5(Q1) return?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The ultimate test for a
> > > > > > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression e) predicate
> > > > > > > is this True("English", "This sentence is not true").
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have difficulty to follow. Would you use Q1,Q2 to explain?
> > > > > > What should H5(Q1) return? And why?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Both would be ~True.
> > > > > It works the same way that Prolog works.
> > > > > ~Provable(L,x) means untrue(L,x)
> > > >
> > > > So you mean H5(Q1) should tell us the correct reply to "What time is it" is "no"?
> > >
> > > ~True(L,x) does not mean false. Random gibberish is also ~True.
> > >
> > > > and the correct answer to Q2 is "Jack does not hit his wife"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Also ~True.
> >
> > What does ~True mean to Q1,Q2?
> >
>
> It means that they run to the grocery store
> once a week to buy ice cream.
So you mean H5(Q1) will run to the grocery store once a week to buy ice cream?
If so, does POOH do the same (run to the grocery store once a week to buy ice cream)?
> > How do we use the advanced POOH to solve Q1,Q2 if it says we should ask Prolog predicate?
> > I think POOH can only return 0 and 1, or no?
> >
>
> I cannot explain this to anyone that does not know
> what "not true" means.
You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question.
you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107d5fh$2lg0a$19@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124755 |
On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:09 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/11/2025 10:57 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:43 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2025 10:40 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 10:08 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 9:49 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 9:07 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 00:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 11:21 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 10:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 09:11 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 1:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/08/2025 07:06, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fantastic! Good old Claude, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will take you at your word and presume that HHH(DD) does in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return 0, which means "(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort simulation and return 0." - i.e. Claude tells us DD doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); <=== assigns 0 to Halt_Status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far so good. Let's see what happens next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) <=== if(0) is false, so the if's statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next line is skipped...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh-oh; I have a bad feeling about this, but let's see what happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status; <=== DD returns, and therefore halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So Claude was wrong after all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want to try again? With a 1, maybe?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the mankind and AI?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My proof must be step by step or it cannot be understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand that this is correct on that basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the mankind and AI?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My method can be applied to defining a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What method?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression x) predicate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Will you explain the predicate because it looks like function protocol?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It the same idea as Prolog, except it refutes the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>> Undefinability theorem and applies to the entire body of
>>>>>>>>>> human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how do we solve the basic logic problem:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Q1: What time is it? Yes or no.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Q1,Q2 are essentially the same as the halting decider. E.g. we can have H5:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int H5(Problem D5); // H5(D5)==1 iff Problem D5 is true
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What should H5(Q1) return?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ultimate test for a
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression e) predicate
>>>>>>>> is this True("English", "This sentence is not true").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have difficulty to follow. Would you use Q1,Q2 to explain?
>>>>>>> What should H5(Q1) return? And why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both would be ~True.
>>>>>> It works the same way that Prolog works.
>>>>>> ~Provable(L,x) means untrue(L,x)
>>>>>
>>>>> So you mean H5(Q1) should tell us the correct reply to "What time is it" is "no"?
>>>>
>>>> ~True(L,x) does not mean false. Random gibberish is also ~True.
>>>>
>>>>> and the correct answer to Q2 is "Jack does not hit his wife"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also ~True.
>>>
>>> What does ~True mean to Q1,Q2?
>>>
>>
>> It means that they run to the grocery store
>> once a week to buy ice cream.
>
> So you mean H5(Q1) will run to the grocery store once a week to buy ice cream?
> If so, does POOH do the same (run to the grocery store once a week to buy ice cream)?
>
>>> How do we use the advanced POOH to solve Q1,Q2 if it says we should ask Prolog predicate?
>>> I think POOH can only return 0 and 1, or no?
>>>
>>
>> I cannot explain this to anyone that does not know
>> what "not true" means.
>
> You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question.
> you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question.
>
>
It means the same thing as Prolog.
You won't believe me so go look it up.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 00:51 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <63d0d78cc09e28ef8fdc8377b79bc522f732207c.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #124757 |
On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:09 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 8/11/2025 10:57 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:43 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 8/11/2025 10:40 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/11/2025 10:08 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 8/11/2025 9:49 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 8/11/2025 9:07 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 00:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 11:21 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 10:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 09:11 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/10/2025 1:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/08/2025 07:06, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantastic! Good old Claude, eh?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take you at your word and presume that HHH(DD) does in fact
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return 0, which means "(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pattern:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abort simulation and return 0." - i.e. Claude tells us DD doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > halt.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int DD()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); <=== assigns 0 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Halt_Status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far so good. Let's see what happens next.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (Halt_Status) <=== if(0) is false, so the if's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next line is skipped...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh-oh; I have a bad feeling about this, but let's see what happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return Halt_Status; <=== DD returns, and therefore
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > halts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Claude was wrong after all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Want to try again? With a 1, maybe?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My proof must be step by step or it cannot be understood.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All that I need for now is agreement on HHH(DD)==0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is correct when HHH(DD) is reporting on the behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Until you understand that this is correct on that basis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If HHH does not refute the HP, I can understand. But how would it be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the mankind and AI?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My method can be applied to defining a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What method?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression x) predicate.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Will you explain the predicate because it looks like function protocol?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It the same idea as Prolog, except it refutes the Tarski
> > > > > > > > > > > Undefinability theorem and applies to the entire body of
> > > > > > > > > > > human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, but how do we solve the basic logic problem:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Q1: What time is it? Yes or no.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Q1,Q2 are essentially the same as the halting decider. E.g. we can have H5:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > int H5(Problem D5); // H5(D5)==1 iff Problem D5 is true
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What should H5(Q1) return?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The ultimate test for a
> > > > > > > > > Boolean True(Language L, Expression e) predicate
> > > > > > > > > is this True("English", "This sentence is not true").
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have difficulty to follow. Would you use Q1,Q2 to explain?
> > > > > > > > What should H5(Q1) return? And why?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both would be ~True.
> > > > > > > It works the same way that Prolog works.
> > > > > > > ~Provable(L,x) means untrue(L,x)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you mean H5(Q1) should tell us the correct reply to "What time is it" is "no"?
> > > > >
> > > > > ~True(L,x) does not mean false. Random gibberish is also ~True.
> > > > >
> > > > > > and the correct answer to Q2 is "Jack does not hit his wife"?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also ~True.
> > > >
> > > > What does ~True mean to Q1,Q2?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It means that they run to the grocery store
> > > once a week to buy ice cream.
> >
> > So you mean H5(Q1) will run to the grocery store once a week to buy ice cream?
> > If so, does POOH do the same (run to the grocery store once a week to buy ice cream)?
> >
> > > > How do we use the advanced POOH to solve Q1,Q2 if it says we should ask Prolog predicate?
> > > > I think POOH can only return 0 and 1, or no?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I cannot explain this to anyone that does not know
> > > what "not true" means.
> >
> > You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question.
> > you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question.
> >
> >
>
> It means the same thing as Prolog.
Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk about C?
> You won't believe me so go look it up.
Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to save human.
When I ask question about H5 (or POOH), you say I should go to refer Prolog
predicate. I talk about Prolog, you would talk Tarski theorem or TM,...,etc.
All looked to me is quite simple: H5(Q1) simply cannot decide to return 0 or 1.
can it?
I would not say you don't know H5(Q1) cannot decide. But if you know the answer
I wonder again why you seemingly always dodges? Are you hiding something from
people, that cannot see the light?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 12:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <107d7vn$2lg0a$23@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124767 |
On 8/11/2025 11:51 AM, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote: >> On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote: >>> >>> You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question. >>> you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question. >>> >>> >> >> It means the same thing as Prolog. > > Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk about C? > >> You won't believe me so go look it up. > > Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to save human. When a system based on my idea is fully populated with every basic fact of the world then it is as complete as any formal system can possibly be and the pathological self-reference trick will not fool it. LP = "This sentence is not true" True(English, LP) == false. True(English, ~LP) == false. Prolog does this same thing with its https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. True(English, "Trump lied about election fraud") == TRUE True(English, "Climate change is caused by humans") == TRUE True(English, "Climate change is severe and must be mitigated") == TRUE -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 01:29 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <d6208049fd18d672389e8ef5b0002d90ebe19ccb.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #124769 |
On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:07 -0500, olcott wrote: > On 8/11/2025 11:51 AM, wij wrote: > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote: > > > On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote: > > > > > > > > You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question. > > > > you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means the same thing as Prolog. > > > > Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk about C? > > > > > You won't believe me so go look it up. > > > > Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to save human. > > When a system based on my idea is fully > populated with every basic fact of the > world then it is as complete as any formal > system can possibly be and the pathological > self-reference trick will not fool it. > > LP = "This sentence is not true" > True(English, LP) == false. > True(English, ~LP) == false. > > Prolog does this same thing with its > https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 > > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. > > True(English, "Trump lied about election fraud") == TRUE > True(English, "Climate change is caused by humans") == TRUE > True(English, "Climate change is severe and must be mitigated") == TRUE Again you turn to Prolog to explain POOH which is in C !!! I am an expert in C but not Prolog. When I ask question about H5 (or POOH), you say I should go to refer Prolog predicate. I talk about Prolog, you would talk Tarski theorem or TM,...,etc. All looked to me is quite simple: H5(Q1) simply cannot decide to return 0 or 1. Is it true or false "H5(Q1) cannot decide to return 0 or 1".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 12:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <107da5e$2lg0a$30@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124778 |
On 8/11/2025 12:29 PM, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:07 -0500, olcott wrote: >> On 8/11/2025 11:51 AM, wij wrote: >>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question. >>>>> you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> It means the same thing as Prolog. >>> >>> Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk about C? >>> >>>> You won't believe me so go look it up. >>> >>> Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to save human. >> >> When a system based on my idea is fully >> populated with every basic fact of the >> world then it is as complete as any formal >> system can possibly be and the pathological >> self-reference trick will not fool it. >> >> LP = "This sentence is not true" >> True(English, LP) == false. >> True(English, ~LP) == false. >> >> Prolog does this same thing with its >> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 >> >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. >> >> True(English, "Trump lied about election fraud") == TRUE >> True(English, "Climate change is caused by humans") == TRUE >> True(English, "Climate change is severe and must be mitigated") == TRUE > > Again you turn to Prolog to explain POOH which is in C !!! > I am an expert in C but not Prolog. Prolog has a fully developed True(L,x) predicate. Tarski anchors his whole proof in the foundation of the Liar Paradox. https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. Four lines of Prolog proves that Tarski is wrong. > When I ask question about H5 (or POOH), you say I should go to refer Prolog > predicate. I talk about Prolog, you would talk Tarski theorem or TM,...,etc. > > All looked to me is quite simple: H5(Q1) simply cannot decide to return 0 or 1. > Is it true or false "H5(Q1) cannot decide to return 0 or 1". > True(English, "What time is it yes or no?") exception thrown invalid input. Qx = "What time is it" ~True(English, Qx) ~True(English, ~Qx) -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 01:55 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <dc4fac99bb1560b40772efb28fe8aface9b3f011.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #124782 |
On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:44 -0500, olcott wrote: > On 8/11/2025 12:29 PM, wij wrote: > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:07 -0500, olcott wrote: > > > On 8/11/2025 11:51 AM, wij wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote: > > > > > On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question. > > > > > > you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means the same thing as Prolog. > > > > > > > > Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk about C? > > > > > > > > > You won't believe me so go look it up. > > > > > > > > Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to save human. > > > > > > When a system based on my idea is fully > > > populated with every basic fact of the > > > world then it is as complete as any formal > > > system can possibly be and the pathological > > > self-reference trick will not fool it. > > > > > > LP = "This sentence is not true" > > > True(English, LP) == false. > > > True(English, ~LP) == false. > > > > > > Prolog does this same thing with its > > > https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 > > > > > > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > > > LP = not(true(LP)). > > > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > > > false. > > > > > > True(English, "Trump lied about election fraud") == TRUE > > > True(English, "Climate change is caused by humans") == TRUE > > > True(English, "Climate change is severe and must be mitigated") == TRUE > > > > Again you turn to Prolog to explain POOH which is in C !!! > > I am an expert in C but not Prolog. > > Prolog has a fully developed True(L,x) predicate. > > Tarski anchors his whole proof in the foundation > of the Liar Paradox. > https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf > > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. > > Four lines of Prolog proves that Tarski is wrong. > > > When I ask question about H5 (or POOH), you say I should go to refer Prolog > > predicate. I talk about Prolog, you would talk Tarski theorem or TM,...,etc. > > > > All looked to me is quite simple: H5(Q1) simply cannot decide to return 0 or 1. > > Is it true or false "H5(Q1) cannot decide to return 0 or 1". > > > > True(English, "What time is it yes or no?") > exception thrown invalid input. > > Qx = "What time is it" > ~True(English, Qx) > ~True(English, ~Qx) I am an expert in C. My IQ is is among the 5% of mankind (I know you are an C expert,too. And IQ is the top 3%). So, do you suggest POOH cannot answer the question, or is wrong, it should be specified in Prolog? But I am asking Q1,Q2: Q1: What time is it? Yes or no. Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife? What should H5(Q1) return? Can H5(Q1) be decided to return 0,1? I am an expert in C. My IQ is is among the 5% of mankind, I also want to save human. Preferably by using POOH.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 13:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <107db84$2lg0a$34@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124786 |
On 8/11/2025 12:55 PM, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:44 -0500, olcott wrote: >> On 8/11/2025 12:29 PM, wij wrote: >>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:07 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2025 11:51 AM, wij wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question. >>>>>>> you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It means the same thing as Prolog. >>>>> >>>>> Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk about C? >>>>> >>>>>> You won't believe me so go look it up. >>>>> >>>>> Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to save human. >>>> >>>> When a system based on my idea is fully >>>> populated with every basic fact of the >>>> world then it is as complete as any formal >>>> system can possibly be and the pathological >>>> self-reference trick will not fool it. >>>> >>>> LP = "This sentence is not true" >>>> True(English, LP) == false. >>>> True(English, ~LP) == false. >>>> >>>> Prolog does this same thing with its >>>> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 >>>> >>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>> false. >>>> >>>> True(English, "Trump lied about election fraud") == TRUE >>>> True(English, "Climate change is caused by humans") == TRUE >>>> True(English, "Climate change is severe and must be mitigated") == TRUE >>> >>> Again you turn to Prolog to explain POOH which is in C !!! >>> I am an expert in C but not Prolog. >> >> Prolog has a fully developed True(L,x) predicate. >> >> Tarski anchors his whole proof in the foundation >> of the Liar Paradox. >> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf >> >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. >> >> Four lines of Prolog proves that Tarski is wrong. >> >>> When I ask question about H5 (or POOH), you say I should go to refer Prolog >>> predicate. I talk about Prolog, you would talk Tarski theorem or TM,...,etc. >>> >>> All looked to me is quite simple: H5(Q1) simply cannot decide to return 0 or 1. >>> Is it true or false "H5(Q1) cannot decide to return 0 or 1". >>> >> >> True(English, "What time is it yes or no?") >> exception thrown invalid input. >> >> Qx = "What time is it" >> ~True(English, Qx) >> ~True(English, ~Qx) > > I am an expert in C. My IQ is is among the 5% of mankind (I know you are an > C expert,too. And IQ is the top 3%). > Great. > So, do you suggest POOH cannot answer the question, The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption that cannot be understood to be a false assumption until after it is fully understood that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement. > or is wrong, it should be > specified in Prolog? But I am asking Q1,Q2: > > Q1: What time is it? Yes or no. Neither > > Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife? No > > What should H5(Q1) return? Can H5(Q1) be decided to return 0,1? > I have no idea what H5 is. > I am an expert in C. My IQ is is among the 5% of mankind, I also want to save > human. Preferably by using POOH. > > Great !!! -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 14:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <107dbbb$2lehv$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124790 |
On 8/11/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/11/2025 12:55 PM, wij wrote: >> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:44 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/11/2025 12:29 PM, wij wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:07 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2025 11:51 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no >>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>> you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It means the same thing as Prolog. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk >>>>>> about C? >>>>>> >>>>>>> You won't believe me so go look it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to >>>>>> save human. >>>>> >>>>> When a system based on my idea is fully >>>>> populated with every basic fact of the >>>>> world then it is as complete as any formal >>>>> system can possibly be and the pathological >>>>> self-reference trick will not fool it. >>>>> >>>>> LP = "This sentence is not true" >>>>> True(English, LP) == false. >>>>> True(English, ~LP) == false. >>>>> >>>>> Prolog does this same thing with its >>>>> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man? >>>>> predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 >>>>> >>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>> false. >>>>> >>>>> True(English, "Trump lied about election fraud") == TRUE >>>>> True(English, "Climate change is caused by humans") == TRUE >>>>> True(English, "Climate change is severe and must be mitigated") == >>>>> TRUE >>>> >>>> Again you turn to Prolog to explain POOH which is in C !!! >>>> I am an expert in C but not Prolog. >>> >>> Prolog has a fully developed True(L,x) predicate. >>> >>> Tarski anchors his whole proof in the foundation >>> of the Liar Paradox. >>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf >>> >>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>> false. >>> >>> Four lines of Prolog proves that Tarski is wrong. >>> >>>> When I ask question about H5 (or POOH), you say I should go to refer >>>> Prolog >>>> predicate. I talk about Prolog, you would talk Tarski theorem or >>>> TM,...,etc. >>>> >>>> All looked to me is quite simple: H5(Q1) simply cannot decide to >>>> return 0 or 1. >>>> Is it true or false "H5(Q1) cannot decide to return 0 or 1". >>>> >>> >>> True(English, "What time is it yes or no?") >>> exception thrown invalid input. >>> >>> Qx = "What time is it" >>> ~True(English, Qx) >>> ~True(English, ~Qx) >> >> I am an expert in C. My IQ is is among the 5% of mankind (I know you >> are an >> C expert,too. And IQ is the top 3%). >> > > Great. >> So, do you suggest POOH cannot answer the question, > > The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption Specifically, that an H exists that meets these requirements: Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y: A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping: (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 13:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected |
| Message-ID | <107dcp1$2lg0a$36@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124791 |
On 8/11/2025 1:04 PM, dbush wrote: > On 8/11/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption > > > Specifically, that an H exists that meets these requirements: > > > Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X > described as <X> with input Y: > > A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the > following mapping: > > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly > (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly Yes that is the false assumption about how Turing machines are actually defined. It assumes that the behavior specified by (<X>,Y) is identical to the behavior of X(Y). The correct way to define this is the halting problem (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if <X> Y correctly simulated by H reaches its own simulated final halt state (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if <X> Y correctly simulated by H reaches cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 14:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected |
| Message-ID | <107dcuj$2lehv$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124795 |
On 8/11/2025 2:28 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/11/2025 1:04 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/11/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption >> >> >> Specifically, that an H exists that meets these requirements: >> >> >> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >> X described as <X> with input Y: >> >> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >> following mapping: >> >> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >> directly > > Yes that is the false assumption about how Turing machines > are actually defined. It assumes that the behavior specified > by (<X>,Y) is identical to the behavior of X(Y). Stipulative definition: The behavior specified by machine description <X> is exactly the behavior of machine X.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 13:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected |
| Message-ID | <107ddpd$2lg0a$39@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124796 |
On 8/11/2025 1:31 PM, dbush wrote: > On 8/11/2025 2:28 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/11/2025 1:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 8/11/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption >>> >>> >>> Specifically, that an H exists that meets these requirements: >>> >>> >>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >>> X described as <X> with input Y: >>> >>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >>> following mapping: >>> >>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>> directly >> >> Yes that is the false assumption about how Turing machines >> are actually defined. It assumes that the behavior specified >> by (<X>,Y) is identical to the behavior of X(Y). > > Stipulative definition: > > The behavior specified by machine description <X> is exactly the > behavior of machine X. > Yes and equally it is stipulated that all square circles have a radius equal the length of one of their four equal length sides * 1/2 π. I have proven that DD correctly simulated by HHH has different behavior than DD(). Ignoring or failing to comprehend this proof does not count as any rebuttal. Hanging on to a false assumption against the verified facts seems dishonest. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 14:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected |
| Message-ID | <107de14$2lehv$19@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124802 |
On 8/11/2025 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/11/2025 1:31 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/11/2025 2:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/11/2025 1:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption >>>> >>>> >>>> Specifically, that an H exists that meets these requirements: >>>> >>>> >>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of >>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y: >>>> >>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes >>>> the following mapping: >>>> >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>> directly >>> >>> Yes that is the false assumption about how Turing machines >>> are actually defined. It assumes that the behavior specified >>> by (<X>,Y) is identical to the behavior of X(Y). >> >> Stipulative definition: >> >> The behavior specified by machine description <X> is exactly the >> behavior of machine X. >> > > Yes and equally it is stipulated that all square > circles have a radius equal the length of one of > their four equal length sides * 1/2 π. So if I can't change the definition of "machine description", then you can't change the definition of "halting problem" Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y: A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping: (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly It is a proven fact that the above requirements cannot be satisfied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 02:18 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <3259e293a228fcf25865b03db237606447cff039.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #124790 |
On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 13:02 -0500, olcott wrote: > On 8/11/2025 12:55 PM, wij wrote: > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:44 -0500, olcott wrote: > > > On 8/11/2025 12:29 PM, wij wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 12:07 -0500, olcott wrote: > > > > > On 8/11/2025 11:51 AM, wij wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 11:24 -0500, olcott wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/11/2025 11:22 AM, wij wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You need to. "not true" is invented by you to answer a yes/no question. > > > > > > > > you need to explain what "not true" means to a yes/no question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means the same thing as Prolog. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does POOH relies on Prolog? Then, why you hide the fact and talk about C? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You won't believe me so go look it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't mistake. I believe you. The problem is I cannot use it to save human. > > > > > > > > > > When a system based on my idea is fully > > > > > populated with every basic fact of the > > > > > world then it is as complete as any formal > > > > > system can possibly be and the pathological > > > > > self-reference trick will not fool it. > > > > > > > > > > LP = "This sentence is not true" > > > > > True(English, LP) == false. > > > > > True(English, ~LP) == false. > > > > > > > > > > Prolog does this same thing with its > > > > > https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 > > > > > > > > > > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > > > > > LP = not(true(LP)). > > > > > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > > > > > false. > > > > > > > > > > True(English, "Trump lied about election fraud") == TRUE > > > > > True(English, "Climate change is caused by humans") == TRUE > > > > > True(English, "Climate change is severe and must be mitigated") == TRUE > > > > > > > > Again you turn to Prolog to explain POOH which is in C !!! > > > > I am an expert in C but not Prolog. > > > > > > Prolog has a fully developed True(L,x) predicate. > > > > > > Tarski anchors his whole proof in the foundation > > > of the Liar Paradox. > > > https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf > > > > > > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > > > LP = not(true(LP)). > > > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > > > false. > > > > > > Four lines of Prolog proves that Tarski is wrong. > > > > > > > When I ask question about H5 (or POOH), you say I should go to refer Prolog > > > > predicate. I talk about Prolog, you would talk Tarski theorem or TM,...,etc. > > > > > > > > All looked to me is quite simple: H5(Q1) simply cannot decide to return 0 or 1. > > > > Is it true or false "H5(Q1) cannot decide to return 0 or 1". > > > > > > > > > > True(English, "What time is it yes or no?") > > > exception thrown invalid input. > > > > > > Qx = "What time is it" > > > ~True(English, Qx) > > > ~True(English, ~Qx) > > > > I am an expert in C. My IQ is is among the 5% of mankind (I know you are an > > C expert,too. And IQ is the top 3%). > > > > Great. > > So, do you suggest POOH cannot answer the question, > > The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption > that cannot be understood to be a false assumption until after > it is fully understood that DD correctly simulated by HHH > cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement. > > > or is wrong, it should be > > specified in Prolog? But I am asking Q1,Q2: > > > > Q1: What time is it? Yes or no. > Neither > > > > > Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife? > No As you suggested. If I am teaching a CS student. I can say the answer of Q1,Q2 is undecidable (equ. to 'others'). > > > > What should H5(Q1) return? Can H5(Q1) be decided to return 0,1? > > > I have no idea what H5 is. > > > I am an expert in C. My IQ is is among the 5% of mankind, I also want to save > > human. Preferably by using POOH. > > > > > > Great !!! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 13:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <107dd7e$2lg0a$37@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124794 |
On 8/11/2025 1:18 PM, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 13:02 -0500, olcott wrote:>> >> The original halting problem is anchored in a false assumption >> that cannot be understood to be a false assumption until after >> it is fully understood that DD correctly simulated by HHH >> cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement. >> >>> or is wrong, it should be >>> specified in Prolog? But I am asking Q1,Q2: >>> >>> Q1: What time is it? Yes or no. >> Neither >> >>> >>> Q2: Jack is a bachelor. Does Jack hit his wife? >> No > > As you suggested. If I am teaching a CS student. I can say the answer of Q1,Q2 > is undecidable (equ. to 'others'). > "Undecidable" is a misnomer for invalid input. Its just like "tiny" is a term-of-the-art that means very extremely immensely huge. On the basis of the AFU term-of-the-art Betelgeuse is "tiny" compared to Earth's Moon. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 19:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate |
| Message-ID | <107deeb$2pj4a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124799 |
On 11/08/2025 19:36, olcott wrote: <snip> > "Undecidable" is a misnomer for invalid input. Then you and Turing agree after all. All we have to do is translate Turing's English into Olcott-speak: "Invalid inputs exist." And translating this back into English: "Incomputable functions exist." 22 years on a terminology dispute, hey? Who'd have thunk it? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web