Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #50238 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-11 13:07 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-05-13 12:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 85 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 13:07 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-11 20:11 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:23 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 21:02 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 18:31 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 12:43 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 18:43 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 12:45 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 18:47 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 12:51 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 19:00 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 13:06 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 19:13 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 21:12 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 15:18 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 23:58 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:28 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:40 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:32 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 21:48 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 13:38 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 20:56 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 19:09 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 18:50 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 18:46 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 18:45 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 19:41 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 01:17 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:29 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 20:52 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:10 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 21:29 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 23:02 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 23:54 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:21 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:24 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:42 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:35 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:25 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 21:41 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 12:05 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:01 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:06 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:24 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:11 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:22 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:26 -0700
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 21:44 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:27 -0700
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:22 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:48 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:04 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:06 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:07 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:09 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:20 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:04 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:20 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 19:03 -0600
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 21:21 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 22:37 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 23:46 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:57 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:09 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:18 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:09 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:03 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:11 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:18 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:22 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:28 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-14 11:45 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 04:28 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-14 15:55 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 08:53 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-15 12:05 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 16:11 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:15 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-14 11:26 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 21:03 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 16:02 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 12:21 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 12:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50340 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar > Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical > foundation of analytical truth. Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but what's your opinion? You can't publish H(P,P) == false even though P(P) halts, but I leave the rest of you grand claims to others. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 12:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50361 |
On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >> foundation of analytical truth. > > Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but > what's your opinion? > I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the aspects of the basic foundations of logic. Actual fully operational code refuting the HP proof works best for this because the Gödel, Tarski, and the LP have hidden semantic gaps that are defined as non-existent by the conventional terms of their art so they cannot be seen when using these terms of the art. The errors in the foundations of logic can be summed up very simply. Whenever only truth preserving operations are applied to expressions of language known to be true then a true conclusion is derived. I also correct the definition of validity: Validity and Soundness A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically unrelated. Here is my correction to that issue: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its premises. The semantically unrelated premises and conclusion is not possible with syllogisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure Because syllogisms are comprised of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition > You can't publish H(P,P) == false even though P(P) halts, but I leave > the rest of you grand claims to others. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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 | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50384 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>> foundation of analytical truth. >> >> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >> what's your opinion? > > I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single > detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before > people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the > aspects of the basic foundations of logic. Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 14:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50407 |
On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>> >>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>> what's your opinion? >> >> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. > > Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? > It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input actually specifies. This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period. -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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 Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #50417 |
On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>> >>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>> what's your opinion? >>> >>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >> >> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >> > > It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > actually specifies. > > This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet > people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily > verifiable facts for this whole six month period. > Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. If you claim it means anything else, you aren't working on the Halting Problem. If you claim that the Halting Problem can't ask H that question because of "something", then that is just PROVING the Halting Theorem, as if you can't even ask the question, then you can't expect there to be an H that can give the right answer. The mapping being "Not Computatable" is a valid answer, and just proves the Theorem. All you have actually proven is that you don't understand the problem and likely don't even understand how formal logic works. The fact that you admit that you are changing core foundationally premises of logic, means you are vastly premature to be talking about the Halting Problem, you first need to go through and prove the logical foundations of EVERYTHING it is built on. GOOD LUCK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50432 |
On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>> >>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>>> what's your opinion? >>>> >>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>> >>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>> >> >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >> input actually specifies. >> >> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet >> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily >> verifiable facts for this whole six month period. >> > > Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual > behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the > behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. > The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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 | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 13:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <82faef95-8d60-45f8-a3fa-2d1a8ea3d877n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50435 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:22:17 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: > >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: > >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar > >>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical > >>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but > >>>>> what's your opinion? > >>>> > >>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single > >>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before > >>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the > >>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. > >>> > >>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? > >>> > >> > >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this > >> input actually specifies. > >> > >> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet > >> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily > >> verifiable facts for this whole six month period. > >> > > > > Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual > > behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the > > behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. > > > The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is > the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct > simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. And your H doesn't perform a correct simulation as has been described many times. If the answer H gives doesn't match the defined mapping: H applied to <H^> <H^> reports halting if and only if H^ applied to <H^> halts, and H applied to <H^> <H^> reports non-halting if and only if H^ applied to <H^> does not halt Which it doesn't, then it is by definition wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <qMWdnR4-Q9NdXOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50438 |
On 5/13/2022 3:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:22:17 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>
>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet
>>>> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
>>>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual
>>> behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the
>>> behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>
>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is
>> the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct
>> simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>
> And your H doesn't perform a correct simulation as has been described many times.
That the execution trace provided by H(P,P) exactly matches the behavior
that the x86 source-code of P specifies conclusively proves that the
simulation of the input to H(P,P) is correct.
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
#include <stdint.h>
#define u32 uint32_t
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
_main()
[00001372](01) 55 push ebp
[00001373](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001375](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137a](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137f](05) e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001384](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001387](01) 50 push eax
[00001388](05) 6823040000 push 00000423 // "Input_Halts = "
[0000138d](05) e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
[00001392](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001395](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00001397](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001398](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0039) [00001398]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001372][0010229e][00000000] 55 push ebp
...[00001373][0010229e][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001375][0010229a][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
...[0000137a][00102296][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
...[0000137f][00102292][00001384] e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.
...[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50 push eax
...[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 //
"Input_Halts = "
---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
Input_Halts = 0
...[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
...[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d pop ebp
...[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3 ret
Number_of_User_Instructions(1)
Number of Instructions Executed(15892)
--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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 | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 21:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <20220513214407.00005983@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #50442 |
On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:38:23 -0500 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine > address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the > infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting > behavior pattern. An infinite recursion that only exists in your simulation and not in the proofs you are attempting to refute. Your simulation is based on a category error and is thus invalid. Give it up and do something useful with the rest of your life. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 13:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <7039fc40-6796-4c09-a7aa-e65e6d88a826n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50435 |
On Saturday, 14 May 2022 at 04:22:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: > >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: > >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar > >>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical > >>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but > >>>>> what's your opinion? > >>>> > >>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single > >>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before > >>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the > >>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. > >>> > >>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? > >>> > >> > >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this > >> input actually specifies. > >> > >> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet > >> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily > >> verifiable facts for this whole six month period. > >> > > > > Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual > > behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the > > behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. > > > The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is > the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct > simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott > > "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." > Arthur Schopenhauer Where is the actual POOH? We only hear you lie all day long.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #50435 |
On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, >>>>>> but >>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>> >>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>> >>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>> >>> >>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status >>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>> input actually specifies. >>> >>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet >>> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily >>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period. >>> >> >> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the >> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to >> be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >> > The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is > the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct > simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. > THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting Mapping is defined differently. If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. You lack of understanding of this just proves your own level (total lack of) competence in this area. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50458 |
On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows >>>>>>> why, but >>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every >>>>>> single >>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status >>>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that >>>> this input actually specifies. >>>> >>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, >>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily >>>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period. >>>> >>> >>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the >>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED >>> to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>> >> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is >> the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct >> simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. >> > > THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting Mapping > is defined differently. > > If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem, > then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. > Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is simply untrue. That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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 Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #50469 |
On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows >>>>>>>> why, but >>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every >>>>>>> single >>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status >>>>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that >>>>> this input actually specifies. >>>>> >>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, >>>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily >>>>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the >>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED >>>> to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>> >>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure >>> is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a >>> correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. >>> >> >> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting Mapping >> is defined differently. >> >> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem, >> then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >> > > Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a > definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the > liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is > simply untrue. > > That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) > directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that > requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs > conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria > is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. > You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. They can be non-sensical or inconsistent, but the definition of Halting doesn't have that problem, any computation will either Halt or Not. Maybe, it is non-sensical to think you can ask a Turing Machine to compute the Halting Mapping, but that just means the answer to the Halting Problem is that NO, there does not exist such a machine. It does NOT mean that the machine can be correct giving some other answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50474 |
On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows >>>>>>>>> why, but >>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every >>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status >>>>>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that >>>>>> this input actually specifies. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, >>>>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the >>>>>> easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the >>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED >>>>> to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>> >>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure >>>> is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a >>>> correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. >>>> >>> >>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>> Mapping is defined differently. >>> >>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem, >>> then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>> >> >> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a >> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that >> the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar >> paradox is simply untrue. >> >> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare >> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science >> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their >> inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem >> criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. >> > > You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about. > Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. That is a naive thing to say. This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth actually works. -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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 Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #50476 |
On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the >>>>>>>>>>> Liar >>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows >>>>>>>>>> why, but >>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every >>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual >>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, >>>>>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the >>>>>>> easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the >>>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is >>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>>> >>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure >>>>> is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a >>>>> correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>>> Mapping is defined differently. >>>> >>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the >>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>>> >>> >>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a >>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that >>> the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar >>> paradox is simply untrue. >>> >>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare >>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science >>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their >>> inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem >>> criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. >>> >> >> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about. >> Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. > > That is a naive thing to say. > This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same > system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth > actually works. > > Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend to be able to prove and disprove a lot in such a system). Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model. We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50494 |
On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the >>>>>>>>>>>> Liar >>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows >>>>>>>>>>> why, but >>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the >>>>>>>>>> every single >>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual >>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six >>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring >>>>>>>> the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the >>>>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is >>>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other >>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated >>>>>> by a correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>>>> Mapping is defined differently. >>>>> >>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the >>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not >>>> a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove >>>> that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the >>>> liar paradox is simply untrue. >>>> >>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare >>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science >>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their >>>> inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting >>>> problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) >>>> rare cases. >>>> >>> >>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about. >>> Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. >> >> That is a naive thing to say. >> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same >> system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth >> actually works. >> >> > > Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions. > That is > the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent systems tend to > make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend to be able to > prove and disprove a lot in such a system). > > Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual > system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the > definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model. > > We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but > technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad model. -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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 Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <DIBfK.9401$pqKf.630@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #50495 |
On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here >>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but >>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the >>>>>>>>>>> every single >>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct >>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some >>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual >>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six >>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply >>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month >>>>>>>>> period. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the >>>>>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is >>>>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other >>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as >>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the >>>>>>> simulating halt decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>>>>> Mapping is defined differently. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the >>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not >>>>> a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove >>>>> that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the >>>>> liar paradox is simply untrue. >>>>> >>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare >>>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science >>>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from >>>>> their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting >>>>> problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) >>>>> rare cases. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>> Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. >>> >>> That is a naive thing to say. >>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same >>> system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth >>> actually works. >>> >>> >> >> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. > > Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of > correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions. Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions. If your going to play Humpty Dumpty then you are just admitting that you have lost already, because you are admitting that your goal isn't to find truth but to create obfuscation. I guess just want you systems to be defined that we can't tell it they are correct at all (if more than a toy). Actually PROVING that a system is not inconsistent within that system is beyond the reach of most systems, and can only be done in very finite systems. If that is all you logic is good for, you are setting your self up to be ignored. > > >> That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent >> systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend >> to be able to prove and disprove a lot in such a system). >> >> Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual >> system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the >> definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model. >> >> We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but >> technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad >> model. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <jMCdnVmF4bGPdOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50500 |
On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here >>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the >>>>>>>>>>>> every single >>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct >>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual >>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six >>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply >>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month >>>>>>>>>> period. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, >>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is >>>>>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other >>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as >>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the >>>>>>>> simulating halt decider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the >>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is >>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot >>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that >>>>>> the liar paradox is simply untrue. >>>>>> >>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare >>>>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science >>>>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from >>>>>> their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the >>>>>> halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously >>>>>> undiscovered) rare cases. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking >>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. >>>> >>>> That is a naive thing to say. >>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the >>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that >>>> truth actually works. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. >> >> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of >> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions. > > Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions. > I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how symbolic logic diverges from this. > If your going to play Humpty Dumpty then you are just admitting that you > have lost already, because you are admitting that your goal isn't to > find truth but to create obfuscation. > > I guess just want you systems to be defined that we can't tell it they > are correct at all (if more than a toy). > > Actually PROVING that a system is not inconsistent within that system is > beyond the reach of most systems, and can only be done in very finite > systems. > > If that is all you logic is good for, you are setting your self up to be > ignored. > >> >> >>> That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent >>> systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend >>> to be able to prove and disprove a lot in such a system). >>> >>> Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual >>> system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the >>> definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model. >>> >>> We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but >>> technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad >>> model. >> >> > -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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 Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <smCfK.43261$qMI1.13073@fx96.iad> |
| In reply to | #50504 |
On 5/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the >>>>>>>>>>>>> every single >>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct >>>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual >>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six >>>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply >>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month >>>>>>>>>>> period. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, >>>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> >>>>>>>>>> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other >>>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as >>>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the >>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the >>>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is >>>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot >>>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him >>>>>>> that the liar paradox is simply untrue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare >>>>>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science >>>>>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from >>>>>>> their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the >>>>>>> halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously >>>>>>> undiscovered) rare cases. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking >>>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. >>>>> >>>>> That is a naive thing to say. >>>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the >>>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that >>>>> truth actually works. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. >>> >>> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of >>> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions. >> >> Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions. >> > > I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how symbolic > logic diverges from this. IF you aren't talking about Formal Logic and the rules for it, then you are talking in the wrong place. Note, you don't get to change the rules. If you really want to try to turn the whole field of logic on its head, you really need to be working in the fields that deal with the core basics of how logic works. Comutation Theory and the Halting Problem is NOT where to try to change those things. The fact that you even think it is tends to be a pretty good sign that you don't really understand what you are talking about. My guess is that if you actually had an idea of that level, you needed to start decades ago in the right places for THAT sort of discussion. As it is, you claim to have very limited time, and have ruined any reputation that you might have hoped to have, so you are proably doomed to fail at establishing any sort of new class of logic based on your ideas. > >> If your going to play Humpty Dumpty then you are just admitting that >> you have lost already, because you are admitting that your goal isn't >> to find truth but to create obfuscation. >> >> I guess just want you systems to be defined that we can't tell it they >> are correct at all (if more than a toy). >> >> Actually PROVING that a system is not inconsistent within that system >> is beyond the reach of most systems, and can only be done in very >> finite systems. >> >> If that is all you logic is good for, you are setting your self up to >> be ignored. >> >>> >>> >>>> That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent >>>> systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you >>>> tend to be able to prove and disprove a lot in such a system). >>>> >>>> Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the >>>> actual system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make >>>> the definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad >>>> model. >>>> >>>> We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but >>>> technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad >>>> model. >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <kpWdnUQgUMRdaOP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50512 |
On 5/13/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single >>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct before >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six >>>>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply >>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six >>>>>>>>>>>> month period. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, >>>>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> >>>>>>>>>>> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other >>>>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as >>>>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the >>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>>>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the >>>>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is >>>>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot >>>>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him >>>>>>>> that the liar paradox is simply untrue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some >>>>>>>> rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer >>>>>>>> science decider that requires all deciders to compute the >>>>>>>> mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the >>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in these >>>>>>>> (previously undiscovered) rare cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking >>>>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is a naive thing to say. >>>>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the >>>>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that >>>>>> truth actually works. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. >>>> >>>> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of >>>> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions. >>> >>> Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions. >>> >> >> I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how >> symbolic logic diverges from this. > > IF you aren't talking about Formal Logic and the rules for it, then you > are talking in the wrong place. Note, you don't get to change the rules. When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect. > > If you really want to try to turn the whole field of logic on its head, > you really need to be working in the fields that deal with the core > basics of how logic works. > This issue is the philosophical foundation of logic is inconsistent. > Comutation Theory and the Halting Problem is NOT where to try to change > those things. The fact that you even think it is tends to be a pretty > good sign that you don't really understand what you are talking about. > > My guess is that if you actually had an idea of that level, you needed > to start decades ago in the right places for THAT sort of discussion. > I started in 1997. The HP is the only concrete example where all of the details of the error in the philosophical foundation of logic can be shown in all of its complete detail as actually fully operational code. Every other way of proving my point has gaps in reasoning that have been hard-wired into the conventional definitions of terms of the art. When I try to correct these errors people simply assume that I do not correctly know the proper definition. > As it is, you claim to have very limited time, and have ruined any > reputation that you might have hoped to have, so you are proably doomed > to fail at establishing any sort of new class of logic based on your ideas. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web