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 11 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 23 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgpmd$1ab77$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135949 |
On 11/17/2025 8:46 PM, dart200 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:
>
No I am directly showing the key error of the
halting problem. It is very very difficult to
to understand. I have been working on this since
2004 and I just understood the error this year.
> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute
> whether the machine described halts
>
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a different sequence
of steps than the input to HHH1(DD).
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that returns to DD that returns to HHH1.
The sound basis of this reasoning is the
semantics of the C programming language.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int HHH1(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
> the only difference between ur claim here and the proofs is the why
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 23:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <20251117152350.182@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135901 |
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > The mistake that even Rice makes is simply presuming > that a finite string input DD to the same decider HHH > that DD calls has the same behavior as the input to a > decider HHH1 that this input does not call. If HHH1 and HHH are identical, they are just different names for the same function. Just like if we define x = y = 49 then x and y are different names for 49. if we then have the expression: sqrt(x) we may not say "x and y are almost the same number, except y is not mentioned in sqrt(x), only x". You made a coding mistake in Halt7.obj which causes identical functions to be treated as different, by using raw address comparison instead of a semantic comparison. Address comparison can find two functions to be different. It is an inappropriate notion from the low levels of a programming system, which cannot be used to model the mathematical reality of abstract computational functions. If you implemented a correct comparison, then there would be no difference in behavior between HHH and HHH1. Because, then, DD /is/ calling HHH1 when it calls HHH. Just like sqrt(x) /is/ evaluating sqrt(y).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fg4bd$14tpa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135885 |
On 11/17/2025 11:41 AM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >> >>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured >>>>>>>> professors don't >>>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >> >>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. >> >>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>> sacked for >>>>>> this reason. >> >>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >> >>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >>>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>>> reply you made to my last post. >> >> >>> You have to read it all the way through. >> >> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > > uhhh ... not that carefully > >> >>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>> need to read my arguments carefully. >> >> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > > bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner > > because u don't read things let me bullet point: > - comp sci phd in 1974 > - full prof in 1983 > - chair in software engineering in 2001 > - emeritus in 2012 till now > - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field > > ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in 1989 > his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor of... > > the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton > > if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro > >> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting Theorem >> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >> science. >> >> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >> fruitless discussions which happen here. Let me be like you. Take a long walk off a short pier?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fg50n$15adi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135896 |
On 11/17/25 1:33 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/17/2025 11:41 AM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >>> >>>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured >>>>>>>>> professors don't >>>>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >>> >>>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. >>> >>>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>>> sacked for >>>>>>> this reason. >>> >>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >>> >>>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>>> anybody >>>>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>>>> reply you made to my last post. >>> >>> >>>> You have to read it all the way through. >>> >>> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. >> >> uhhh ... not that carefully >> >>> >>>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>>> need to read my arguments carefully. >>> >>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >> >> bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner >> >> because u don't read things let me bullet point: >> - comp sci phd in 1974 >> - full prof in 1983 >> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >> - emeritus in 2012 till now >> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field >> >> ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in >> 1989 his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor >> of... >> >> the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton >> >> if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro >> >>> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >>> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >>> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >>> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting >>> Theorem >>> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >>> science. >>> >>> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >>> fruitless discussions which happen here. > > Let me be like you. Take a long walk off a short pier? an example of literally peak technical consideration from u -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 16:49 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fg8po$16bkr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135898 |
On 11/17/2025 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 1:33 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 11:41 AM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured >>>>>>>>>> professors don't >>>>>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >>>> >>>>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. >>>> >>>>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>>>> sacked for >>>>>>>> this reason. >>>> >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >>>> >>>>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>>>> anybody >>>>>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>>>>> reply you made to my last post. >>>> >>>> >>>>> You have to read it all the way through. >>>> >>>> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. >>> >>> uhhh ... not that carefully >>> >>>> >>>>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>>>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>>>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>>>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>>>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>>>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>>>> need to read my arguments carefully. >>>> >>>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >>> >>> bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner >>> >>> because u don't read things let me bullet point: >>> - comp sci phd in 1974 >>> - full prof in 1983 >>> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >>> - emeritus in 2012 till now >>> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field >>> >>> ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in >>> 1989 his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an >>> editor of... >>> >>> the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton >>> >>> if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro >>> >>>> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >>>> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >>>> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >>>> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting >>>> Theorem >>>> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >>>> science. >>>> >>>> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >>>> fruitless discussions which happen here. >> >> Let me be like you. Take a long walk off a short pier? > > an example of literally peak technical consideration from u > Only on this forum, yet the reason that I blocked him. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 22:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <20251117135435.550@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135885 |
On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >> >>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >> >>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. >> >>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >>>>>> this reason. >> >>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >> >>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >>>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>>> reply you made to my last post. >> >> >>> You have to read it all the way through. >> >> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > > uhhh ... not that carefully > >> >>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>> need to read my arguments carefully. >> >> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > > bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner > > because u don't read things let me bullet point: > - comp sci phd in 1974 Could the boy he was in 1974 get a Ph. D. in CS today? It is a much more viciously competitive field. In 1974, you could still get Ph. D's in systems research: i.e. for some sort of hacking, accompanied by analysis. And, indeed, look. His thesis was "Matching program and data representations to a computing environment." (Free PDF unavailable; purchase links not working.) Can we at least get a faint whiff of what this was about? Another paper, fully available, references it, namely "An Empirical Study of List Structure in Lisp", Douglas W. Clark, 1977. Unfortunately, it is only referenced once right in the introduction (as end note [11]) In programming systems it is often the case that the generality permitted in representing information goes largely unused by real programs and programmers. When this is true, memory requirements can be reduced by using space-efficient encodings of programs and data (e.g. [11, 22]). OK, so Eric must have had something about compressing programs and data that contain redundancy, and shares the reference for that with [22]. Eric's paper is mentioned in two more citations, both by the same author, a certain David A. Ditzel. Oops, no, one more citation. Those two apparent citations turn out to be the same paper, just located at different page numbers in different volumes of a larger collection: It should be noted that many comparisons of code density were made with respect to machines which are known to have inefficient encodings. A serious question which must be confronted is whether a similar or better improvement can be obtained by improving the instruction set of a low-level language machine. Recent studies would appear to make this verv likely. [36, 37, 38] Here Eric's paper is [37]. Again, implicated in something having to do with coding density, and lumped with two other references. > - full prof in 1983 > - chair in software engineering in 2001 > - emeritus in 2012 till now > - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field It's just someone who knows how to navigate academia for a long career. E.g. chair in software engineering: administrative position, not actually /doing/ software engineering. And software engineering is more exactly that part of computer science that isn't mathematics, where religious beliefs can reside about the Right Way to build things. I mean look at this nonsense right from the above page: "In more recent papers, my argument is that the inconsistency arises only when you ask for a program in some language to compute halting for all programs in that same language. But if you want to compute halting for all programs in one language, you might do so by writing your program in another language". In other words, he suspects it's just another system problem--- a matter of hacking---like the stuff he worked on in 1974. He's not aware that halting is about not having an /algorithm/, not about not having a Turing machine, or Fortran routine, or C function. Given a proposed halting decider H written in Pascal, the diagonal D program could be written in Perl, including its implementation. Thus you can't claim that the halting of Perl programs is decidable by writing the decider in Pascal, on the basis that the Perl test cases couldn't integrate the Pacal decider and contradict it. In fact, a Perl test case could integrate the original Pascal version of the algorithm! All you need is to implement a virtual machine for Wirth's P-code in Perl, and apply it to the compiled Pascal. Or just parse Pacal to a syntax tree and run the syntax tree. Turing complete languages are powerful enough to interpret other Turing languages. How can this guy, with all his credentials, not know that? > if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro It looks like there can be "high functioning cranks" with 50+ year careers in academia. :) Seriously though, a few wrong things written or said don't make someone a crank. There has to be a persistence in being wrong, and being completely self-assured and unprepared to accept any evidence of being wrong and such. It's not just about certain disagreement with facts, but the attitude and behavior, over a longer time frame. You're allowed to say things like that the halting of programs written in language B can be solved by writing in language A; that's just being wrong, not being a crank. It doesn't look good, if you're a tenured academic in CS with decades and decades of experience, but without other crank markers, it's just wrong and nothing more. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 23:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fiv2k$1t3at$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135903 |
On 17/11/2025 22:39, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> - full prof in 1983 >> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >> - emeritus in 2012 till now >> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field > > It's just someone who knows how to navigate academia for a long career. > E.g. chair in software engineering: administrative position, not actually > /doing/ software engineering. Doesn't "emeritus" get reserved for those the university means to imply was a proper professor? [lots of stuff about Kaz' superior expert's failure to understand snipped] The extent of misunderstanding is extraordinary. It means he and /all his colleagues/ were unable to put on his desk explanatory materials for decades in a row. -- 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 23:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <20251118152344.512@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136023 |
On 2025-11-18, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 17/11/2025 22:39, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>> - full prof in 1983 >>> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >>> - emeritus in 2012 till now >>> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field >> >> It's just someone who knows how to navigate academia for a long career. >> E.g. chair in software engineering: administrative position, not actually >> /doing/ software engineering. > > Doesn't "emeritus" get reserved for those the university means to imply > was a proper professor? > > [lots of stuff about Kaz' superior expert's failure to understand snipped] > > The extent of misunderstanding is extraordinary. It means he and /all > his colleagues/ were unable to put on his desk explanatory materials for > decades in a row. He was in a CSRG: computer systems research group. That's geared toward hacking, basically. Hacking and giving each other titles and degrees for great hacking. People immersed in systems will tend to reduce things to code, and will tend to be surrounded by similar others who don't set them straight. Computing is a big field; you can be very good in a good slice of it, but have blind spots elsewhere. If some CS professors emeriti think that a shell script could decide teh halting of all Perl programs, are we too hard on Olcott? No, because it's Olcott's attitude that is the problem. I would hope that if a professor emeritus is struggling under some misconception, he's at least prepared to have it dislodged and move on. I recently saw a YouTube video about a bet between a high profile science YouTuber and a physics prof. The prof lost and paid up the ten grand. I remember thinking, Olcott should watch that. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 17:43 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fj0ar$1tdhr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136024 |
On 11/18/2025 5:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-18, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 17/11/2025 22:39, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>> - full prof in 1983 >>>> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >>>> - emeritus in 2012 till now >>>> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field >>> >>> It's just someone who knows how to navigate academia for a long career. >>> E.g. chair in software engineering: administrative position, not actually >>> /doing/ software engineering. >> >> Doesn't "emeritus" get reserved for those the university means to imply >> was a proper professor? >> >> [lots of stuff about Kaz' superior expert's failure to understand snipped] >> >> The extent of misunderstanding is extraordinary. It means he and /all >> his colleagues/ were unable to put on his desk explanatory materials for >> decades in a row. > > He was in a CSRG: computer systems research group. That's geared toward > hacking, basically. Hacking and giving each other titles and degrees > for great hacking. > > People immersed in systems will tend to reduce things to code, and will > tend to be surrounded by similar others who don't set them straight. > > Computing is a big field; you can be very good in a good slice of it, > but have blind spots elsewhere. > > If some CS professors emeriti think that a shell script could decide > teh halting of all Perl programs, are we too hard on Olcott? > > No, because it's Olcott's attitude that is the problem. > I have lately been rage filled at the end of my 22 years of patience. > I would hope that if a professor emeritus is struggling under some > misconception, he's at least prepared to have it dislodged and move on. > Why the fuck don't you fucking try to actually understand you fucking dip shit!!! > I recently saw a YouTube video about a bet between a high profile > science YouTuber and a physics prof. The prof lost and paid up the > ten grand. I remember thinking, Olcott should watch that. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 16:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fj1ls$1stcj$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136026 |
On 11/18/2025 3:43 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/18/2025 5:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-18, Tristan Wibberley >> <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> On 17/11/2025 22:39, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>> - full prof in 1983 >>>>> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >>>>> - emeritus in 2012 till now >>>>> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field >>>> >>>> It's just someone who knows how to navigate academia for a long career. >>>> E.g. chair in software engineering: administrative position, not >>>> actually >>>> /doing/ software engineering. >>> >>> Doesn't "emeritus" get reserved for those the university means to imply >>> was a proper professor? >>> >>> [lots of stuff about Kaz' superior expert's failure to understand >>> snipped] >>> >>> The extent of misunderstanding is extraordinary. It means he and /all >>> his colleagues/ were unable to put on his desk explanatory materials for >>> decades in a row. >> >> He was in a CSRG: computer systems research group. That's geared toward >> hacking, basically. Hacking and giving each other titles and degrees >> for great hacking. >> >> People immersed in systems will tend to reduce things to code, and will >> tend to be surrounded by similar others who don't set them straight. >> >> Computing is a big field; you can be very good in a good slice of it, >> but have blind spots elsewhere. >> >> If some CS professors emeriti think that a shell script could decide >> teh halting of all Perl programs, are we too hard on Olcott? >> >> No, because it's Olcott's attitude that is the problem. >> > > I have lately been rage filled at the end of my > 22 years of patience. Sigh. Too bad. > >> I would hope that if a professor emeritus is struggling under some >> misconception, he's at least prepared to have it dislodged and move on. >> > > Why the fuck don't you fucking try to actually > understand you fucking dip shit!!! Yeah. That will get your papers published for sure. ;^o > >> I recently saw a YouTube video about a bet between a high profile >> science YouTuber and a physics prof. The prof lost and paid up the >> ten grand. I remember thinking, Olcott should watch that. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fl201$2d0vq$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136024 |
On 18/11/2025 23:36, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > He was in a CSRG: computer systems research group. That's geared toward > hacking, basically. Hacking and giving each other titles and degrees > for great hacking. Hacking as in applied computational conjecturing or as in computer espionage? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 17:40 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fj05n$1tdhr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136023 |
On 11/18/2025 5:21 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 17/11/2025 22:39, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-17, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>> - full prof in 1983 >>> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >>> - emeritus in 2012 till now >>> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field >> >> It's just someone who knows how to navigate academia for a long career. >> E.g. chair in software engineering: administrative position, not actually >> /doing/ software engineering. > > Doesn't "emeritus" get reserved for those the university means to imply > was a proper professor? > > [lots of stuff about Kaz' superior expert's failure to understand snipped] > > The extent of misunderstanding is extraordinary. It means he and /all > his colleagues/ were unable to put on his desk explanatory materials for > decades in a row. > It is the difference between objective reasoning and indoctrination. It is the same with me here. I have lately been rage filled at the end of my 22 years of patience. > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:22 -0800 |
| Subject | the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fg3mk$14rag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135873 |
On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, > and only secondarily about computer science. the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically undertake the operations, not set theory that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made resilient to semantic paradoxes this hacksaws off the two fundamental legs of turing's proof such that computing now does not support godel's result, at least not by turing's proof mabye some other limit can be shown ... but the semantic paradox problem is far more insidious than other possible limits, because it can be used to show that we can't even determine how limited we are. you can essentially paradox the paradox detector resolving the halting problem allows us to define more specific limits vs right now where we can't even defined how limited we really are. -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 16:48 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fg8o1$16bkr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135892 |
On 11/17/2025 3:22 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >> and only secondarily about computer science. > > the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing > machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around > > it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as > "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically > undertake the operations, not set theory > > that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with > full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made > resilient to semantic paradoxes > > this hacksaws off the two fundamental legs of turing's proof such that > computing now does not support godel's result, at least not by turing's > proof > > mabye some other limit can be shown ... but the semantic paradox problem > is far more insidious than other possible limits, because it can be used > to show that we can't even determine how limited we are. you can > essentially paradox the paradox detector > > resolving the halting problem allows us to define more specific limits > vs right now where we can't even defined how limited we really are. > It sounds like you have this essence correctly. My essence is in my new signature line. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 13:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fhsph$2hc3$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135892 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >> and only secondarily about computer science. > the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing > machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th century. Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the maths of the time. > it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as > "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically > undertake the operations, not set theory The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing machine is incidental. They are 100% mathematical abstractions, defined, used, and reasoned about as such. > that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with > full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made > resilient to semantic paradoxes That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine; there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't. It is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there are no machines more powerful than turing machines. > this hacksaws off the two fundamental legs of turing's proof such that > computing now does not support godel's result, at least not by turing's > proof I suspect you are mistaken here. > mabye some other limit can be shown ... but the semantic paradox problem > is far more insidious than other possible limits, because it can be used > to show that we can't even determine how limited we are. you can > essentially paradox the paradox detector Sorry, I can't make out anything from that paragraph. > resolving the halting problem allows us to define more specific limits > vs right now where we can't even define how limited we really are. The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been for many decades. It's notable that you perceive the restrictions on computability as a limitation. The alternative is as a capability. Gödel's Theorem shows we have the capability of expressing unprovable things. The Halting Theorem shows we can write programs outside of the capabilities of a mere purported halting decider. > -- > a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve > basic semantic proofs like halting analysis > please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, > ~ nick -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 08:50 -0600 |
| Subject | the halting problem is founded in computer science not math |
| Message-ID | <10fi14f$1kcmu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135981 |
On 11/18/2025 7:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>> and only secondarily about computer science. > >> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around > > Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th > century. Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the > maths of the time. > He invented computer science and when he did that he became the first computer scientist. That his ideas were anchoring in a the brand new formalism of Turing machines broke his work away from math. >> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >> undertake the operations, not set theory > > The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing > machine is incidental. They are 100% mathematical abstractions, > defined, used, and reasoned about as such. > The fact that one can build Turing computable functions in C abstracts tons of details that have nothing to do with the essence of computation. Relationships that were buried in detail can now be finally seen clearly. >> that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with >> full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made >> resilient to semantic paradoxes > > That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine; > there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't. It > is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there > are no machines more powerful than turing machines. > His reflection seems to enable a machine to see its context. *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept state Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state This would enable Ĥ.embedded_H to see its own caller. >> this hacksaws off the two fundamental legs of turing's proof such that >> computing now does not support godel's result, at least not by turing's >> proof > > I suspect you are mistaken here. > >> mabye some other limit can be shown ... but the semantic paradox problem >> is far more insidious than other possible limits, because it can be used >> to show that we can't even determine how limited we are. you can >> essentially paradox the paradox detector > > Sorry, I can't make out anything from that paragraph. > >> resolving the halting problem allows us to define more specific limits >> vs right now where we can't even define how limited we really are. > > The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been > for many decades. > Within a certain set of incorrect assumptions it is fully resolved. It incorrectly assumes that an input that calls its own decider has the exact same behavior when analyzer by a different decider that it does not call. *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept state Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state *Keep repeating unless aborted* (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ Original Linz Turing Machine H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // accept state H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // reject state The input to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has different behavior than the input to Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. H ⟨Ĥ⟩ would simply transition to H.qy when Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn > It's notable that you perceive the restrictions on computability as a > limitation. The alternative is as a capability. Gödel's Theorem shows > we have the capability of expressing unprovable things. The Halting > Theorem shows we can write programs outside of the capabilities of a > mere purported halting decider. > >> -- >> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve >> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis > >> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, > >> ~ nick > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 20:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math |
| Message-ID | <10fijdf$16st$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135985 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/18/2025 7:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >> Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th >> century. Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the >> maths of the time. > He invented computer science and when he did that > he became the first computer scientist. That his > ideas were anchoring in a the brand new formalism > of Turing machines broke his work away from math. It did not. His 1936 paper was a mathematics paper. >>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>> undertake the operations, not set theory >> The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing >> machine is incidental. They are 100% mathematical abstractions, >> defined, used, and reasoned about as such. > The fact that one can build Turing computable functions > in C abstracts tons of details that have nothing to do > with the essence of computation. No, you've got that the wrong way round. The C language burdens computation theory with all sorts of unnecessary details (unnecessary for computation theory, that is). > Relationships that were buried in detail can now be finally seen > clearly. C burdens theory with obfuscation. Turing machines are lacking such inessentials, yet are capable enough to perform any computation. >>> that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with >>> full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made >>> resilient to semantic paradoxes >> That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine; >> there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't. It >> is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there >> are no machines more powerful than turing machines. > His reflection seems to enable a machine to see its context. But the resulting machine won't be able to do anything a suitable turing machine couldn't. [ .... ] >> The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been >> for many decades. > Within a certain set of incorrect assumptions it is fully resolved. You keep saying this, but you've never identified such an incorrect assumption. It's not even clear what you mean by "incorrect assumptions". > It incorrectly assumes that an input that calls > its own decider has the exact same behavior when > analyzer by a different decider that it does not call. That has nothing to do with the Halting Theorem as such, even if it were true. A function is a function, something mapping one set called the domain into another set called the range. The purported decider would be a function in this sense. [ .... ] >> It's notable that you perceive the restrictions on computability as a >> limitation. The alternative is as a capability. Gödel's Theorem shows >> we have the capability of expressing unprovable things. The Halting >> Theorem shows we can write programs outside of the capabilities of a >> mere purported halting decider. >>> -- >>> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve >>> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis >> >>> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, >> >>> ~ nick >> > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math |
| Message-ID | <10fik0a$1q4nk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136001 |
On 11/18/2025 2:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2025 7:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics,
>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science.
>
>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing
>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around
>
>>> Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th
>>> century. Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the
>>> maths of the time.
>
>> He invented computer science and when he did that
>> he became the first computer scientist. That his
>> ideas were anchoring in a the brand new formalism
>> of Turing machines broke his work away from math.
>
> It did not. His 1936 paper was a mathematics paper.
>
He cold not call himself a computer scientist at
the time because his work was the creation of
computer science. For many years all work on
computer science was done in the applied mathematics
department.
>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as
>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically
>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory
>
>>> The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing
>>> machine is incidental. They are 100% mathematical abstractions,
>>> defined, used, and reasoned about as such.
>
>> The fact that one can build Turing computable functions
>> in C abstracts tons of details that have nothing to do
>> with the essence of computation.
>
> No, you've got that the wrong way round. The C language burdens
> computation theory with all sorts of unnecessary details (unnecessary
> for computation theory, that is).
>
Simply moving an object in memory from one location
to another is far too burdensome. The RASP machine
maps pretty well to x86 which in turn maps pretty
well to C.
>> Relationships that were buried in detail can now be finally seen
>> clearly.
>
> C burdens theory with obfuscation. Turing machines are lacking such
> inessentials, yet are capable enough to perform any computation.
>
>>>> that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with
>>>> full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made
>>>> resilient to semantic paradoxes
>
>>> That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine;
>>> there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't. It
>>> is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there
>>> are no machines more powerful than turing machines.
>
>> His reflection seems to enable a machine to see its context.
>
> But the resulting machine won't be able to do anything a suitable turing
> machine couldn't.
>
It would point out a new way of looking at things that
has never been sufficiently evaluated before.
> [ .... ]
>
>>> The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been
>>> for many decades.
>
>> Within a certain set of incorrect assumptions it is fully resolved.
>
> You keep saying this, but you've never identified such an incorrect
> assumption. It's not even clear what you mean by "incorrect
> assumptions".
>
I have repeatedly done this yet you are so sure
that I must be wrong that you cannot pay enough
attention.
The reason that I have to repeat some of these
things over and over with progressive refinements
is that everyone is so sure that I must be wrong
that that only glance at some of my words as
their entire basis to contrive a baseless rebuttal.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int HHH1(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that
returns to DD that returns to HHH1.
The behavior of DD simulated by HHH1 is the
same as the behavior of DD() executed from main.
The sound basis of this reasoning is the
semantics of the C programming language.
(a) Halt deciders are required to report on the
actual behavior that their actual input actually
specifies.
(b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to
report on other than the actual behavior that their
actual input actually specifies making the halting
problem incorrect.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 13:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fin08$1onre$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135981 |
On 11/18/25 5:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>> and only secondarily about computer science. > >> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around > > Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th > century. Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the > maths of the time. let me quote you how turing justified turing machines: "We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions..." [Tur36] after which he just directly described how the machine works in mechanical terms. it's not "based on the maths of the time", it's a self-evident concept based on our ability to mechanically realize the steps in such a computation read §1 bro, it's not that long or hard https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf > >> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >> undertake the operations, not set theory > > The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing > machine is incidental. They are 100% mathematical abstractions, it's not incidental, its keystone to their self-evidence > defined, used, and reasoned about as such. > >> that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with >> full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made >> resilient to semantic paradoxes > > That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine; > there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't. It the reflection allows for context-aware computation which unlocks expressing more kinds of computation at a level fundamental to the system itself > is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there > are no machines more powerful than turing machines. > >> this hacksaws off the two fundamental legs of turing's proof such that >> computing now does not support godel's result, at least not by turing's >> proof > > I suspect you are mistaken here. but until someone shows a flaw with the system as stated, then it cannot just accept suspicion > >> mabye some other limit can be shown ... but the semantic paradox problem >> is far more insidious than other possible limits, because it can be used >> to show that we can't even determine how limited we are. you can >> essentially paradox the paradox detector > > Sorry, I can't make out anything from that paragraph. in the current theory of machines, we cannot build a decider which *generally* decides whether an input machine can be decided upon for any particular semantic property ... as that itself would be a semantic property. for example: we cannot build a meta-halting-decider that generally returns whether a machine can be decided upon by a halting decider > >> resolving the halting problem allows us to define more specific limits >> vs right now where we can't even define how limited we really are. > > The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been > for many decades. more precisely i'm resolving the halting paradox, the key logical structure that forms the halting problem > > It's notable that you perceive the restrictions on computability as a > limitation. The alternative is as a capability. Gödel's Theorem shows > we have the capability of expressing unprovable things. The Halting godel doesn't show any particular problem as unprovable beyond the one thing it demonstrates that about > Theorem shows we can write programs outside of the capabilities of a > mere purported halting decider. it's not "outside computational capabilities", it's a logical paradox stemming from a lack of mechanical access to the required information to resolve it -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fl2nf$2d0vq$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136006 |
On 18/11/2025 21:04, dart200 wrote: > in the current theory of machines, we cannot build a decider which > *generally* decides whether an input machine can be decided upon for any > particular semantic property ... as that itself would be a semantic > property. Can that be deduced from the fact it itself would be a semantic property that could be *the* semantic property we're interested in? It wouldn't be the Halts? property and its not trivially obvious that the thwarting proof translates. > for example: we cannot build a meta-halting-decider that generally > returns whether a machine can be decided upon by a halting decider That's interesting. I'd like to see a proof that given a purported matched decider-program tuple that there is no general match-approver. Does it have a mapping to the halting problem? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web