Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 449 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:31 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:11 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 14:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:25 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 19:49 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-13 08:54 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:21 -0800
How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0100
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-11-13 12:14 +0000
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:06 -0800
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:28 -0600
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:22 -0600
Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:36 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:49 +0100
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:26 -0600
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 20:59 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 20:49 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:06 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 15:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 10:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 14:56 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:33 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 15:52 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:03 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 09:05 -0800
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 17:52 +0000
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 11:45 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:58 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-15 11:59 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 08:49 +0000
"true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:08 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 13:21 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:46 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:00 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:29 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:23 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:38 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:34 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 13:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:23 +0000
eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 20:34 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 14:45 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:24 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:30 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:20 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:03 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:35 -0600
polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:06 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:46 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:17 +0000
help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:43 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:48 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 11:19 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:47 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox --- TXR and AWK olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:49 -0600
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 21:01 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:18 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 13:03 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:45 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:07 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:41 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:37 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 15:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:41 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:12 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:42 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:57 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:22 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:56 -0800
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 17:24 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:27 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 02:42 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:23 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:41 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 05:04 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:19 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 17:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 12:15 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 18:22 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 19:18 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 23:14 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-22 05:39 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:00 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:26 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:44 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 20:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 14:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:09 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-23 04:20 +0000
Glossary of names in my termination analyzer system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 22:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 22:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 21:56 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 02:54 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:42 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:36 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- is libel against him olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:00 -0600
polcott agrees that the halting problem is incorrect in this way olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:47 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-18 23:47 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 00:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 00:57 +0000
polcott has shwn that the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:17 -0600
Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:24 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:06 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:07 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:41 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:49 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:18 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:40 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:44 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 01:56 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 20:19 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:25 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 22:05 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:43 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:03 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:26 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 19:42 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- quit lying about what I say olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:45 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000
homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 20:53 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-20 21:09 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:06 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:50 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:28 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:33 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:49 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:39 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 23:21 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 23:36 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:43 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:06 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:24 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0600
the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:22 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:48 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:36 +0000
the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:50 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:02 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 13:04 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-19 23:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-19 17:53 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:11 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:05 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:15 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:15 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 23:38 -0800
Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-22 03:02 +0000
halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:48 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:05 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:13 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 20:14 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:25 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:46 +0000
"great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 02:24 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 14:41 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:39 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 10:59 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:17 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:50 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:15 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:54 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:05 +0000
The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 01:03 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:36 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:22 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 08:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 08:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 10:15 -0500
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 18:42 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:06 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:59 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:09 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:31 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:39 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:00 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:19 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:58 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:40 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 11:02 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:10 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:33 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:04 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:26 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:02 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:43 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:57 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:52 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:54 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 20:51 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:20 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:44 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:44 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:58 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:56 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:52 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 16:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:24 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 05:28 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:44 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 19:37 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 09:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:03 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 06:43 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:03 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:24 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:06 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 03:30 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:04 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:14 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:25 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 11:56 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:35 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:05 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:27 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:40 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:08 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:53 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 22:54 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 23:30 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 00:10 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 01:07 +0000
Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 01:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:13 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 03:41 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 10:55 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 11:11 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:44 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 11:26 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:02 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:13 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 10:08 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:27 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-13 04:50 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:16 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:05 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:01 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:30 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:27 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:56 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:09 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:20 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:20 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:25 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:40 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:21 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:03 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:31 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:01 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200
Page 10 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 23 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10flajn$2gbgj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136115 |
On 11/19/2025 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 19/11/2025 18:26, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/18/25 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>>>>> their input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>>>>> describing the machine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>>>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>>>>> >>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to >>>>>> compute >>>>>> whether the machine described halts >>>>> >>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >>>>> >>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >>>>> the string. >>>> >>>> yes i meant generally >>>> >>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute >>>> whether a an machine description halts or not >>> >>> What does that mean though? >>> >>> It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ >>> machine description D, must compute "whether or not D's halting is >>> computable". [And saying no such single TM exists?] >> >> yes, it takes /single/ machine input a outputs whether /any/ other >> machine could compute the input machine's halting semantics. > > Have you read Kaz's response to my post? That explains why for any > given machine, there is always some other machine that computes the > halting status of that machine. Basically there are only two possible > behaviours: halts or neverhalts. We just need two machines H1 and H0 > that straight away return halts/neverhalts respectively. For any > machine M, either H1 or H0 correctly computes M's halting status, so > assuming normal terminology use, any single M is decideable. (And by > extension, halting for any finite set of machines is decidable.) > > Sometimes people attempt to come up with reasons why H1 and H0 don't > count. That was certainly PO's response, and his explanation was that > H1 and H0 are disqualified as halt deciders because they "aren't even > trying". He has never explained what it means for a TM to "not really > try" to do something; of course, TMs are just what they are, without > "trying" to do anything. We're not talking about an olympic sport where > there are points awarded for effort/artistic interpretation etc., it's > all just "whether they work". > > [Also, people like PO often confuse what the halting problem says, > believing that it is implying that there is some machine M which "cannot > be decided". That's a misunderstanding...] > > Anyhow, all of that is completely missing the point of the halting > problem - that is to find /one/ machine H that can decide /any/ input > M_desc. Finding a machine that can decide one specific input is trivial. Right. Any machine can have a specialized decider for it. However, there is no _single_ decider for all machines...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10flieu$2j7n4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136115 |
On 11/19/2025 12:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 19/11/2025 18:26, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/18/25 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>>>>> their input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>>>>> describing the machine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>>>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>>>>> >>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to >>>>>> compute >>>>>> whether the machine described halts >>>>> >>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >>>>> >>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >>>>> the string. >>>> >>>> yes i meant generally >>>> >>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute >>>> whether a an machine description halts or not >>> >>> What does that mean though? >>> >>> It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ >>> machine description D, must compute "whether or not D's halting is >>> computable". [And saying no such single TM exists?] >> >> yes, it takes /single/ machine input a outputs whether /any/ other >> machine could compute the input machine's halting semantics. > > Have you read Kaz's response to my post? That explains why for any > given machine, there is always some other machine that computes the > halting status of that machine. Basically there are only two possible > behaviours: halts or neverhalts. We just need two machines H1 and H0 > that straight away return halts/neverhalts respectively. For any > machine M, either H1 or H0 correctly computes M's halting status, so > assuming normal terminology use, any single M is decideable. (And by > extension, halting for any finite set of machines is decidable.) > > Sometimes people attempt to come up with reasons why H1 and H0 don't > count. That was certainly PO's response, and his explanation was that > H1 and H0 are disqualified as halt deciders because they "aren't even > trying". He has never explained what it means for a TM to "not really > try" to do something; of course, TMs are just what they are, without > "trying" to do anything. We're not talking about an olympic sport where > there are points awarded for effort/artistic interpretation etc., it's > all just "whether they work". They don't count as *deciders* plain and simple because a *decider* must decide correctly on all possible inputs. Even a partial decider must, for all possible inputs, return "yes", "no", or "don't know" and must be correct when returning one of the first two. So that any machine that returns the same value for all inputs, is a decider in a domain where the onto range contains one and only one value, e.g., a halt decider that decides halting status for all possible non-halting (TM, data) input - not very interesting. Neither is the example of a decider that returns "don't know" for all inputs. (Just to state the obvious: when something is said to return a value halting of that something is entailed.) > [Also, people like PO often confuse what the halting problem says, > believing that it is implying that there is some machine M which "cannot > be decided". That's a misunderstanding...] > > Anyhow, all of that is completely missing the point of the halting > problem - that is to find /one/ machine H that can decide /any/ input > M_desc. Finding a machine that can decide one specific input is trivial.-- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10flkmf$2jpub$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136137 |
On 11/19/2025 5:04 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > On 11/19/2025 12:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 19/11/2025 18:26, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/18/25 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>>>>>> their input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>>>>>> describing the machine >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>>>>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to >>>>>>> compute >>>>>>> whether the machine described halts >>>>>> >>>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >>>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >>>>>> >>>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >>>>>> the string. >>>>> >>>>> yes i meant generally >>>>> >>>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute >>>>> whether a an machine description halts or not >>>> >>>> What does that mean though? >>>> >>>> It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ >>>> machine description D, must compute "whether or not D's halting is >>>> computable". [And saying no such single TM exists?] >>> >>> yes, it takes /single/ machine input a outputs whether /any/ other >>> machine could compute the input machine's halting semantics. >> >> Have you read Kaz's response to my post? That explains why for any >> given machine, there is always some other machine that computes the >> halting status of that machine. Basically there are only two possible >> behaviours: halts or neverhalts. We just need two machines H1 and H0 >> that straight away return halts/neverhalts respectively. For any >> machine M, either H1 or H0 correctly computes M's halting status, so >> assuming normal terminology use, any single M is decideable. (And by >> extension, halting for any finite set of machines is decidable.) >> >> Sometimes people attempt to come up with reasons why H1 and H0 don't >> count. That was certainly PO's response, and his explanation was that >> H1 and H0 are disqualified as halt deciders because they "aren't even >> trying". He has never explained what it means for a TM to "not really >> try" to do something; of course, TMs are just what they are, without >> "trying" to do anything. We're not talking about an olympic sport >> where there are points awarded for effort/artistic interpretation >> etc., it's all just "whether they work". > > They don't count as *deciders* plain and simple because a *decider* must > decide correctly on all possible inputs. Even a partial decider must, > for all possible inputs, return "yes", "no", or "don't know" and must be > correct when returning one of the first two. So that any machine that > returns the same value for all inputs, is a decider in a domain where > the onto range contains one and only one value, e.g., a halt decider > that decides halting status for all possible non-halting (TM, data) > input - not very interesting. Neither is the example of a decider that > returns "don't know" for all inputs. (Just to state the obvious: when > something is said to return a value halting of that something is entailed.) Yes that is technically correct, yet the term partial decider totally befuddles newcomers. I switched to termination analyzers that are supposed to be correct for all program/input pairs which is made much simpler for programs having no inputs. >> [Also, people like PO often confuse what the halting problem says, >> believing that it is implying that there is some machine M which >> "cannot be decided". That's a misunderstanding...] >> >> Anyhow, all of that is completely missing the point of the halting >> problem - that is to find /one/ machine H that can decide /any/ input >> M_desc. Finding a machine that can decide one specific input is >> trivial.-- > Jeff Barnett > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fllud$2k590$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136137 |
On 19/11/2025 23:04, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 11/19/2025 12:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 19/11/2025 18:26, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 11/18/25 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to
>>>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in
>>>>>>>>>> their input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string
>>>>>>>>> describing the machine
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation
>>>>>>>> is like this very extreme example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States
>>>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2).
>>>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute
>>>>>>> whether the machine described halts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one
>>>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than
>>>>>> the string.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes i meant generally
>>>>>
>>>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute whether a an machine
>>>>> description halts or not
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean though?
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ machine description D, must
>>>> compute "whether or not D's halting is computable". [And saying no such single TM exists?]
>>>
>>> yes, it takes /single/ machine input a outputs whether /any/ other machine could compute the
>>> input machine's halting semantics.
>>
>> Have you read Kaz's response to my post? That explains why for any given machine, there is always
>> some other machine that computes the halting status of that machine. Basically there are only two
>> possible behaviours: halts or neverhalts. We just need two machines H1 and H0 that straight away
>> return halts/neverhalts respectively. For any machine M, either H1 or H0 correctly computes M's
>> halting status, so assuming normal terminology use, any single M is decideable. (And by
>> extension, halting for any finite set of machines is decidable.)
>>
>> Sometimes people attempt to come up with reasons why H1 and H0 don't count. That was certainly
>> PO's response, and his explanation was that H1 and H0 are disqualified as halt deciders because
>> they "aren't even trying". He has never explained what it means for a TM to "not really try" to
>> do something; of course, TMs are just what they are, without "trying" to do anything. We're not
>> talking about an olympic sport where there are points awarded for effort/artistic interpretation
>> etc., it's all just "whether they work".
>
> They don't count as *deciders* plain and simple because a *decider* must decide correctly on all
> possible inputs.
A decider "for a single machine" is by definition a decider for the input domain consisting of that
single machine-description. Behaviour for other inputs is simply irrelevent.
If you want to consider a decider whose domain consists of all input strings, then:
a) obviously such a machine cannot be a halt decider. The Linz proof shows this.
b) if we want a partial decider (as you describe below), then since a single
TM-description is effectively recognisable, we could replace my H1/H0 above
with adjusted versions H1'/H2' that first check whether their input is
a description of the M in question. If not they return dontknow, otherwise
they return halts/neverhalts as T1/T0 respectively.
But this is a separate question - we are actually considering an input domain of one element.
> Even a partial decider must, for all possible inputs, return "yes", "no", or "don't
> know" and must be correct when returning one of the first two. So that any machine that returns the
> same value for all inputs, is a decider in a domain where the onto range contains one and only one
> value, e.g., a halt decider that decides halting status for all possible non-halting (TM, data)
> input - not very interesting.
Or a domain with just one element {M_desc}
> Neither is the example of a decider that returns "don't know" for all
> inputs. (Just to state the obvious: when something is said to return a value halting of that
> something is entailed.)
No, Sorry but that's Just Wrong too. Returning "don't know" for all input is valid, but not very
interesting I admit. PO has also said what you just said! (Not that that means it's automatically
wrong, but it's not a good sign! :) Anyhow, my H1'/H0' above do not return "don't know" for all
inputs.)
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800 |
| Subject | homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10flt6n$2lj48$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136115 |
On 11/19/25 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 19/11/2025 18:26, dart200 wrote:
>> On 11/18/25 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to
>>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in
>>>>>>>>> their input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string
>>>>>>>> describing the machine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation
>>>>>>> is like this very extreme example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States
>>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2).
>>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to
>>>>>> compute
>>>>>> whether the machine described halts
>>>>>
>>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one
>>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than
>>>>> the string.
>>>>
>>>> yes i meant generally
>>>>
>>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute
>>>> whether a an machine description halts or not
>>>
>>> What does that mean though?
>>>
>>> It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/
>>> machine description D, must compute "whether or not D's halting is
>>> computable". [And saying no such single TM exists?]
>>
>> yes, it takes /single/ machine input a outputs whether /any/ other
>> machine could compute the input machine's halting semantics.
>
> Have you read Kaz's response to my post? That explains why for any
> given machine, there is always some other machine that computes the
> halting status of that machine. Basically there are only two possible
> behaviours: halts or neverhalts. We just need two machines H1 and H0
> that straight away return halts/neverhalts respectively. For any
> machine M, either H1 or H0 correctly computes M's halting status, so
> assuming normal terminology use, any single M is decideable. (And by
> extension, halting for any finite set of machines is decidable.)
>
> Sometimes people attempt to come up with reasons why H1 and H0 don't
> count. That was certainly PO's response, and his explanation was that
> H1 and H0 are disqualified as halt deciders because they "aren't even
> trying". He has never explained what it means for a TM to "not really
> try" to do something; of course, TMs are just what they are, without
> "trying" to do anything. We're not talking about an olympic sport where
> there are points awarded for effort/artistic interpretation etc., it's
> all just "whether they work".
>
> [Also, people like PO often confuse what the halting problem says,
> believing that it is implying that there is some machine M which "cannot
> be decided". That's a misunderstanding...]
>
> Anyhow, all of that is completely missing the point of the halting
> problem - that is to find /one/ machine H that can decide /any/ input
> M_desc. Finding a machine that can decide one specific input is trivial.
>
>
> Mike.
mike, there's two responses to this
a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
it becomes cat and mouse: if you define a new decider, i can add to my
growing multi-paradox that includes it.
homework assignment for the group: write a multi-decider paradox that
confounds both H1 and H0
b) turing's original semantic paradox ("satisfactory" circle-free vs
circular computable number) cannot be solved by a secondary decider on
the matter. the halting problem is fundamentally a simple form of
semantic paradox than the "satisfactory" problem.
afaik, other than me, no one i've read is trying to address semantic
paradoxes is targeting turing's original form.
i should probably write a post on that too
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251119181918.294@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136147 |
On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10flvke$2lj48$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136151 |
On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>
> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>
> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
interface and you know it
try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251119185114.849@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136152 |
On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>
>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>
>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>
> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
> interface and you know it
>
> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
exist.
If halting algorithms existed
- they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
- it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
a wrong answer!
So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
(by doing so, showing them to be that way).
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fm3c6$2lj49$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136153 |
On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>
>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>
>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>
>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>> interface and you know it
>>
>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>
> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
> exist.
>
> If halting algorithms existed
>
> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>
> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
> a wrong answer!
>
> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
the paradox
this isn't hard, it's just adding half a line of code to the original
paradox
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251120115427.869@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136161 |
On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>
>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>
>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>
>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>> interface and you know it
>>>
>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>
>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>> exist.
>>
>> If halting algorithms existed
>>
>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>
>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>> a wrong answer!
>>
>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>
> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
> the paradox
By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
writes it?
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fns5p$36nnk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136184 |
On 11/20/25 11:55 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>>
>>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>>> interface and you know it
>>>>
>>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>>
>>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> If halting algorithms existed
>>>
>>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>>
>>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>>> a wrong answer!
>>>
>>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>>
>> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
>> the paradox
>
> By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
> variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
> for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
> writes it?
>
assume the premise exist and show a contradiction for both deciders
within one machine
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251120121342.230@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136185 |
On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/20/25 11:55 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>>>> interface and you know it
>>>>>
>>>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>>>
>>>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> If halting algorithms existed
>>>>
>>>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>>>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>>>
>>>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>>>> a wrong answer!
>>>>
>>>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>>>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>>>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>>>
>>> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
>>> the paradox
>>
>> By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
>> variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
>> for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
>> writes it?
>>
>
> assume the premise exist and show a contradiction for both deciders
> within one machine
If one decider says true, and the other false, for the contradicting
case, then no can do. Infinitely looping, or terminating, contradicts
only one of the decider, agreeing with the other. There isn't a third
choice of behavior.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fntda$3702s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136189 |
On 20/11/2025 20:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/20/25 11:55 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>>>>> interface and you know it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>>>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>>>>
>>>>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> If halting algorithms existed
>>>>>
>>>>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>>>>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>>>>
>>>>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>>>>> a wrong answer!
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>>>>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>>>>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>>>>
>>>> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
>>>> the paradox
>>>
>>> By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
>>> variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
>>> for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
>>> writes it?
>>>
>>
>> assume the premise exist and show a contradiction for both deciders
>> within one machine
>
> If one decider says true, and the other false, for the contradicting
> case, then no can do. Infinitely looping, or terminating, contradicts
> only one of the decider, agreeing with the other. There isn't a third
> choice of behavior.
>
oh I see, not that the thwarted deciders go different ways, but the raw
deciders go different ways before thwarting!
well, the results of the deciders are combined to form a single decider,
if that is (const . first) it's just equal to the first decider, if it's
(const . second) it's just equal to the second decider, if it's 'or' or
and then it's a bit complicated. There's a whole thing about computing
the conjunction of all deciders that approaches the universal decision
as you approach the universal inclusion but how long does the approach
take... well, we can make an intuitive leap based on what we know about
halting.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fmfjp$2phq9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136151 |
On 20/11/2025 02:29, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and >> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which > > This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make > exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or > not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable > if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other. Their decisions (evaluations) don't differ when they both exist. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 20:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fnv3v$37jbq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136147 |
On 20/11/2025 02:08, dart200 wrote:
> On 11/19/25 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 19/11/2025 18:26, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 11/18/25 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to
>>>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in
>>>>>>>>>> their input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string
>>>>>>>>> describing the machine
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation
>>>>>>>> is like this very extreme example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States
>>>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2).
>>>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute
>>>>>>> whether the machine described halts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one
>>>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than
>>>>>> the string.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes i meant generally
>>>>>
>>>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute whether a an machine
>>>>> description halts or not
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean though?
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ machine description D, must
>>>> compute "whether or not D's halting is computable". [And saying no such single TM exists?]
>>>
>>> yes, it takes /single/ machine input a outputs whether /any/ other machine could compute the
>>> input machine's halting semantics.
>>
>> Have you read Kaz's response to my post? That explains why for any given machine, there is always
>> some other machine that computes the halting status of that machine. Basically there are only two
>> possible behaviours: halts or neverhalts. We just need two machines H1 and H0 that straight away
>> return halts/neverhalts respectively. For any machine M, either H1 or H0 correctly computes M's
>> halting status, so assuming normal terminology use, any single M is decideable. (And by
>> extension, halting for any finite set of machines is decidable.)
>>
>> Sometimes people attempt to come up with reasons why H1 and H0 don't count. That was certainly
>> PO's response, and his explanation was that H1 and H0 are disqualified as halt deciders because
>> they "aren't even trying". He has never explained what it means for a TM to "not really try" to
>> do something; of course, TMs are just what they are, without "trying" to do anything. We're not
>> talking about an olympic sport where there are points awarded for effort/artistic interpretation
>> etc., it's all just "whether they work".
>>
>> [Also, people like PO often confuse what the halting problem says, believing that it is implying
>> that there is some machine M which "cannot be decided". That's a misunderstanding...]
>>
>> Anyhow, all of that is completely missing the point of the halting problem - that is to find /one/
>> machine H that can decide /any/ input M_desc. Finding a machine that can decide one specific
>> input is trivial.
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>
> mike, there's two responses to this
>
> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and possibly even infinite
> deciders. certainly any finite set, after which it becomes cat and mouse: if you define a new
> decider, i can add to my growing multi-paradox that includes it.
>
> homework assignment for the group: write a multi-decider paradox that confounds both H1 and H0
I'm not clear what you mean by "writing a paradox". The HP is not a paradox, in my view, and I
would guess in most computer scientists / mathematicians views (but that's just a guess).
It sounds as though you're challenging posters to write some kind of /program/ ?, so maybe just
replace your use of "paradox" with "program" or at leas some more descriptive term. I think there's
a risk that people seeing you talking about HP paradoxes could dismiss you as a crank. (I'm not
suggesting you are a crank, just that your terminology may result in people disengaging from your
work...)
Clearly every TM halts or does not halt, so this "program" must be some kind of program that neither
halts nor doesn't halt? Ummm.... Well, I guess you want people to write one of your
context-sensitive programs? Perhaps they simply don't have any concept of halting?
But is it really the case that cs_TMs don't have a halting status? That sounds wrong, but for sure
we might need to work on setting a new appropriate definition of halting, applicable for cs-TMs? As
soon as we do that, my previous argument will work with appropriate adjustments.
[Basically, what I said holds as long as there are only a small number of halting statuses that
apply to cs-TMs. In fact, I imagine we will still have just "halts" or "neverhalts", so my H0, H1
will suffice as they are - regardless of whether your program "confounds" them!.)
So I don't think (a) disagrees with my previous post.
>
> b) turing's original semantic paradox ("satisfactory" circle-free vs circular computable number)
> cannot be solved by a secondary decider on the matter. the halting problem is fundamentally a simple
> form of semantic paradox than the "satisfactory" problem.
I think you're just saying that HP cannot be solved by having two deciders e.g. my H0/H1, such that
given any input M, one of H0/H1 decides M correctly. That's true, as the HP asks for /one/ TM
decider, not two, and crucially we don't have a way to combine H0/H1 into a single decider that
satisfies HP.
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 21:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fo02u$37qo7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136193 |
On 20/11/2025 20:53, Mike Terry wrote: <snip> > I think you're just saying that HP cannot be solved by having two > deciders e.g. my H0/H1, such that given any input M, one of H0/H1 > decides M correctly. That's true, as the HP asks for /one/ TM > decider, not two, and crucially we don't have a way to combine > H0/H1 into a single decider that satisfies HP. <shrug> Let's say we did. It would necessarily have its own diagonal case, which it couldn't solve. The End. -- 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]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 13:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fo1ji$36nnk$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136194 |
On 11/20/25 1:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 20/11/2025 20:53, Mike Terry wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I think you're just saying that HP cannot be solved by having two
>> deciders e.g. my H0/H1, such that given any input M, one of H0/H1
>> decides M correctly. That's true, as the HP asks for /one/ TM
>> decider, not two, and crucially we don't have a way to combine H0/H1
>> into a single decider that satisfies HP.
>
> <shrug>
>
> Let's say we did.
>
> It would necessarily have its own diagonal case, which it couldn't solve.
>
> The End.
>
yeah i think my point is trying to be that...
you can build this "diagonal case"/semantic paradox for trying to solve
the HP with any N deciders, because to solve HP you need to funnel the
semantic meaning thru one single interface which is where the paradox
will invariably target...
with reflective computing (RTMs) and their REFLECT mechanism, i can base
the deciders response on it's specific positing within the overall
single execution path of configurations, so it can respond differently
at different points over the computation, but in a deterministic,
usable, /effectively computable/ manner
afaik rn, this cannot be possibly targeted by a semantic paradox unless
you erase/lie via simulation about the information required to determine
it's objective position in the overall execution path via a liar's context.
it's important to remember that all turing-complete computation
technically form a singluar list of machine configurations that does one
of three things:
0) finite set of configurations that halts
1) finite set of configurations that loops back on itself,
creating an infinite-time loop that runs forever
2) infinite set of configurations that runs forever without a loop
... you wouldn't know that from the way we go about writing modern code
however, we're away thinking in terms of an untenable amount of
branching ...
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 22:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251120135930.627@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136197 |
On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > On 11/20/25 1:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 20/11/2025 20:53, Mike Terry wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> I think you're just saying that HP cannot be solved by having two >>> deciders e.g. my H0/H1, such that given any input M, one of H0/H1 >>> decides M correctly. That's true, as the HP asks for /one/ TM >>> decider, not two, and crucially we don't have a way to combine H0/H1 >>> into a single decider that satisfies HP. >> >> <shrug> >> >> Let's say we did. >> >> It would necessarily have its own diagonal case, which it couldn't solve. >> >> The End. >> > > yeah i think my point is trying to be that... > > you can build this "diagonal case"/semantic paradox for trying to solve > the HP with any N deciders, because to solve HP you need to funnel the > semantic meaning thru one single interface which is where the paradox > will invariably target... "N deciders" and "1 decider built out of combining the decision of N deciders" are completely different beasts. One produces a tuple of N bools, the other a bool. There is a diagonal case for every one of the N deciders individually, as well as for the combined decider built on N of them. There isn't a diagonal case against N decisions combined into a tuple for N > 1, except when all N produce the same value. If H0(D) yields false, and so does H1(D) and so does H2(D) --- all unanimously assert that D doesn't halt, then D can contradict them all by halting. If any two disagree, then no. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 13:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fo2eg$36mgb$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136193 |
On 11/20/25 12:53 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>> it becomes cat and mouse: if you define a new decider, i can add to my
>> growing multi-paradox that includes it.
>>
>> homework assignment for the group: write a multi-decider paradox that
>> confounds both H1 and H0
>
> I'm not clear what you mean by "writing a paradox". The HP is not a
> paradox, in my view, and I would guess in most computer scientists /
> mathematicians views (but that's just a guess).
it's a paradox in how the liar's paradox is a paradox
>
> It sounds as though you're challenging posters to write some kind of /
> program/ ?, so maybe just replace your use of "paradox" with "program"
> or at leas some more descriptive term. I think there's a risk that
> people seeing you talking about HP paradoxes could dismiss you as a
> crank. (I'm not suggesting you are a crank, just that your terminology
> may result in people disengaging from your work...)
>
> Clearly every TM halts or does not halt, so this "program" must be some
> kind of program that neither halts nor doesn't halt? Ummm.... Well, I
> guess you want people to write one of your context-sensitive programs?
> Perhaps they simply don't have any concept of halting?
>
> But is it really the case that cs_TMs don't have a halting status? That
> sounds wrong, but for sure we might need to work on setting a new
> appropriate definition of halting, applicable for cs-TMs? As soon as we
> do that, my previous argument will work with appropriate adjustments.
>
> [Basically, what I said holds as long as there are only a small number
> of halting statuses that apply to cs-TMs. In fact, I imagine we will
> still have just "halts" or "neverhalts", so my H0, H1 will suffice as
> they are - regardless of whether your program "confounds" them!.)
>
> So I don't think (a) disagrees with my previous post.
>
>>
>> b) turing's original semantic paradox ("satisfactory" circle-free vs
>> circular computable number) cannot be solved by a secondary decider on
>> the matter. the halting problem is fundamentally a simple form of
>> semantic paradox than the "satisfactory" problem.
>
> I think you're just saying that HP cannot be solved by having two
> deciders e.g. my H0/H1, such that given any input M, one of H0/H1
> decides M correctly. That's true, as the HP asks for /one/ TM decider,
> not two, and crucially we don't have a way to combine H0/H1 into a
> single decider that satisfies HP.
i'm saying that for the "satisfactory" paradox written about by turing
having two partial deciders is utterly meaningless on the matter,
it's not even a "partial" solution it's just another total failure to
resolve the paradox involved in a literal diagonal computation across
*all* computable numbers
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fohmg$3cgrf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136027 |
On 11/18/2025 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>>> their input. >>>>>> >>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>>> describing the machine >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>>> >>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>>> >>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>>> >>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to >>>> compute >>>> whether the machine described halts >>> >>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >>> >>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >>> the string. >> >> yes i meant generally >> >> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute >> whether a an machine description halts or not > > What does that mean though? > > It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ machine > description D, must compute "whether or not D's halting is computable". > [And saying no such single TM exists?] > > The problem is in the phrase within quotes. Surely that phrase means > "whether or not there exists a TM that computes whether the given D > halts or not"? If not, what does it mean? > > The All is the All, take the fact that any machine can have a specialized decider, to infinity and beyond.... Its all? How many did it mis, none. Ahh, a specialized decider is just a finite instance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web