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 12 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 23 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 23:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <87zf8hioim.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #135892 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >> and only secondarily about computer science. > > the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing > machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different problem altogether. > it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as > "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically > undertake the operations, not set theory No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in order to believe this). The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most cases, even understand it). -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 17:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <8tqdneQcrYjqxYP0nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #136138 |
On 11/19/2025 5:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>> and only secondarily about computer science. >> >> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around > > No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different > problem altogether. > >> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >> undertake the operations, not set theory > > No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are > entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. > Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was > just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape > alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" > just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine > configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a > set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in > order to believe this). > > The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about > formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of > tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). > This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, > got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever > disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most > cases, even understand it). > None-the-less Turing machines became the foundation of computer science <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. > The wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. > D() executed from main does stop running without needing to be aborted this proves itself to be a different D() D() executed from main does stop running without needing to be aborted this proves itself to be a different D() D() executed from main does stop running without needing to be aborted this proves itself to be a different D() D() executed from main does stop running without needing to be aborted this proves itself to be a different D() D() executed from main does stop running without needing to be aborted this proves itself to be a different D() -- 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 | 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <20251119155357.957@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136141 |
On 2025-11-19, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > D() executed from main > does stop running without needing to be aborted > this proves itself to be a different D() 1. If that /were/ the case you are dead on arrival. There /must not/ be a different D. If you are modeling halting with functions, they have to be pure, recursive function, whose computation depends on nothing but their arguments---of whch D has none. 2. There is only one D. H returns the wrong value 0, and incomplete simulation of D carried out by H has a continuation which terminates.① When it does that, it will have carried out exactly all the same instructions as the D called from main, confirming that there is nothng different about it. H is incorrect in returning 0. That's the most sensible explanation for everything. --- 1. Which has been demonstrated with x86 execution tracing, using the very framework you cobbed together which for years you claimed to be the gold standard reference for proving all your claims. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fllon$2jug3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136141 |
On 2025-11-19, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > D() executed from main > does stop running without needing to be aborted > this proves itself to be a different D() 1. If that /were/ the case you are dead on arrival. There /must not/ be a different D. If you are modeling halting with functions, they have to be pure, recursive function, whose computation depends on nothing but their arguments---of whch D has none. 2. There is only one D. H returns the wrong value 0, and incomplete simulation of D carried out by H has a continuation which terminates.① When it does that, it will have carried out exactly all the same instructions as the D called from main, confirming that there is nothng different about it. H is incorrect in returning 0. That's the most sensible explanation for everything. --- 1. Which has been demonstrated with x86 execution tracing, using the very framework you cobbed together which for years you claimed to be the gold standard reference for proving all your claims. -- 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 | 2025-11-19 21:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fm0sa$2mf8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136143 |
On 11/19/2025 6:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-19, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> D() executed from main >> does stop running without needing to be aborted >> this proves itself to be a different D() > > 1. If that /were/ the case you are dead on arrival. There /must not/ be > a different D. If you are modeling halting with functions, they have > to be pure, recursive function, whose computation depends on nothing > but their arguments---of whch D has none. > <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. So you think that Ben and professor Sipser are stupidly wrong? -- 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 | 2025-11-20 20:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <20251120115617.500@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136154 |
On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/19/2025 6:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-19, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>> D() executed from main >>> does stop running without needing to be aborted >>> this proves itself to be a different D() >> >> 1. If that /were/ the case you are dead on arrival. There /must not/ be >> a different D. If you are modeling halting with functions, they have >> to be pure, recursive function, whose computation depends on nothing >> but their arguments---of whch D has none. >> > ><MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D > until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never > stop running unless aborted then > > H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. ></MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022> > > > On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H > > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines > > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. > > So you think that Ben and professor Sipser are stupidly wrong? Nope! It's exactly like this statement, whose factuality I agree with, though I take issues with the presentation: "It is correctly correctly that 0, 2, 4, 8, 10, ... would be odd, unless the timely intervention takes place of dividing each of them by two with no remainder." -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 18:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fltk7$2lj48$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136138 |
On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>> and only secondarily about computer science. >> >> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around > > No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different > problem altogether. > >> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >> undertake the operations, not set theory > > No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are > entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. > Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was > just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape > alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" > just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine > configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a > set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in > order to believe this). literally his words: we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol T(r)vwhich is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, "directly aware" [Tur36] idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's weird to claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of being specific about it. > > The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about > formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of > tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). > This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, > got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever > disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most > cases, even understand it). no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, they all focus on the halting problem which wasn't what turing specifically worked on. turing uses a "satisfactory" problem to support godel's incompleteness not the halting problem, the halting problem variant was first described by kleene and/or davis -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 23:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <87ikf4i9d9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136148 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>> >>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >> problem altogether. >> >>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>> undertake the operations, not set theory >> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are >> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a >> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >> order to believe this). > > literally his words: > > we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a > machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, > ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied > with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into > sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any > moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol T(r)vwhich > is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The > symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The > "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, > "directly aware" [Tur36] Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. > idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's weird to > claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of being > specific about it. He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing mathematical results about mathematical objects. What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems about mathematical objects? >> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever >> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >> cases, even understand it). > > no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, There is no paradox. > they all focus on the halting problem which wasn't what turing specifically > worked on. Since Turing was interested in the mathematics (the Entscheidungsproblem) and not the practicality of what we now call "computing" he rattles off what we now call the halting theorem and a couple of other (to him) trivial results without giving them either a name or much weight, except in that the advance his main goal. > turing uses a "satisfactory" problem to support godel's incompleteness > not the halting problem, No. I'm not sure what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' problem" because Turing uses the term "satisfactory" only in relation to numbers. However, he is not supporting Godel's incompleteness theorem, he is using what we now call the halting theorem to derive results about computation numbers. In section 11 he says "It should perhaps be remarked what I shall prove is quite different from the well-known results of Gödel". > the halting problem variant was > first described by kleene and/or davis The term was indeed coined later, but the result is right there in the paper along with two proofs. He was inventing the whole subject on the fly so it not surprising that we now use other terms, but a theorem by another name shall smell as sweet. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 23:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <10fp4t4$3g7us$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136203 |
On 11/20/25 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > >> On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>>> >>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >>> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >>> problem altogether. >>> >>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>>> undertake the operations, not set theory >>> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are >>> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >>> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >>> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >>> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >>> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >>> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a >>> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >>> order to believe this). >> >> literally his words: >> >> we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, >> ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied >> with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into >> sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any >> moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol T(r)vwhich >> is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The >> symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The >> "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, >> "directly aware" [Tur36] > > Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, several times end to end??? i'm smelling some bs my dude, sorry bout that, but i'm going to have quote turing a bunch to show how ur quite mistaken about the paper. i haven't read the paper thoroughly end to end. i've only read certain sections thoroughly and skimmed it end to end. most of my focus has into specifically §8, and have read that *very* thoroughly. i then skimmed the rest of the paper concentration specifically on how the results of of §8 are used to justify conclusions in the following sections. i've mostly ignored before §8 since he was mostly just constructing turing machines, but have a rough idea what's going on. > working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a > mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. > >> idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's weird to >> claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of being >> specific about it. > > He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person > who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He > knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing > mathematical results about mathematical objects. > > What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems > about mathematical objects? > >>> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >>> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >>> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >>> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >>> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever >>> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >>> cases, even understand it). >> >> no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, > > There is no paradox. i'm gunna say this a million times, eh??? *the halting paradox is a paradox like how the liar's paradox is a paradox* they work the same way: if you try to "decide" the math object into a set classifying it's semantics, then the object will take that classification and defy the classification, making it impossible to decide upon. > >> they all focus on the halting problem which wasn't what turing specifically >> worked on. > > Since Turing was interested in the mathematics (the > Entscheidungsproblem) and not the practicality of what we now call > "computing" he rattles off what we now call the halting theorem and a > couple of other (to him) trivial results without giving them either a > name or much weight, except in that the advance his main goal. yes, he was using them as building blocks in his proof > >> turing uses a "satisfactory" problem to support godel's incompleteness >> not the halting problem, > > No. I'm not sure what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' problem" because /A number which is a description number of a circle-free machine will be called a satisfactory number. In §8 it is shown that there can be no general process for determining whether a given number is satisfactory or not/ [Tur36 p241] after turing spends §1-§7 defining turing machine, §8 is where he proves the "halting theorem" as you say. in that proof he's really proving there's no way to prove a number "satisfactory" or more technically "circle-free" big miss there buddy, the "satisfactory" paradox (inability to build a general decider for "satisfactory" numbers) he describes §8 (on p247) in is literally keystone contradiction he bases the rest of his undecidable proof > Turing uses the term "satisfactory" only in relation to numbers. > However, he is not supporting Godel's incompleteness theorem, he is he is 100% supporting godel's result /If the negation of what Godel has shown had been proved, i.e. if, for each U, either U or —U is provable, then we should have an immediate solution of the Entscheidungsproblem. For we can invent a machine H which will prove consecutively all provable formulae. Sooner or later H will reach either U or —U. If it reaches U, then we know that U is provable. If it reaches —U, then, since K is consistent (Hilbert and Ackermann, p. 65), we know that U is not provable/ [Tur36 p259] what he's doing is saying that if godel had proven otherwise (to incompleteness) then there'd be some machine which would prove all provable formulae because of this there must be some method to ensure such isn't construct-able, and ultimately §11 is tying such a machine to the previously disproveb notion (of §8) that a decider D that could determine whether a given number is satisfactory: /We are now in a position to show that the Entscheidungsproblem cannot be solved. Let us suppose the contrary. Then there is a general (mechanical) process for determining whether Un(𝓜 ) is provable. By Lemmas 1 and 2, this implies that there is a process for determining whether 𝓜 ever prints 0, and this is impossible, by §8. Hence the Entscheidungsproblem cannot be solved/ [Tur26 p262] yes he is ultimately also disproving the entscheidungsproblem, but he's motivated in doing so specifically because it aligns with godel's previous result, and his paper ultimately strengthens godel's result, even if the specific method *is* quite different > using what we now call the halting theorem to derive results about > computation numbers. In section 11 he says "It should perhaps be > remarked what I shall prove is quite different from the well-known > results of Gödel". > >> the halting problem variant was >> first described by kleene and/or davis > > The term was indeed coined later, but the result is right there in the not just coined later, but also described later. turing specifically tied his support of incompleteness to the "satisfactory number" paradox, not halting paradox > paper along with two proofs. He was inventing the whole subject on the > fly so it not surprising that we now use other terms, but a theorem by > another name shall smell as sweet. -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600 |
| Subject | Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable |
| Message-ID | <10fpvbj$3p0e3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136220 |
On 11/21/2025 1:38 AM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/20/25 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>>>> >>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in >>>>> turing >>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >>>> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >>>> problem altogether. >>>> >>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory >>>> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they >>>> are >>>> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >>>> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >>>> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >>>> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >>>> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >>>> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is >>>> just a >>>> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >>>> order to believe this). >>> >>> literally his words: >>> >>> we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, >>> ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied >>> with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and >>> divided into >>> sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any >>> moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol >>> T(r)vwhich >>> is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The >>> symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The >>> "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, >>> "directly aware" [Tur36] >> >> Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, > > several times end to end??? i'm smelling some bs my dude, sorry bout > that, but i'm going to have quote turing a bunch to show how ur quite > mistaken about the paper. > > i haven't read the paper thoroughly end to end. i've only read certain > sections thoroughly and skimmed it end to end. most of my focus has into > specifically §8, and have read that *very* thoroughly. i then skimmed > the rest of the paper concentration specifically on how the results of > of §8 are used to justify conclusions in the following sections. i've > mostly ignored before §8 since he was mostly just constructing turing > machines, but have a rough idea what's going on. > >> working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a >> mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. >> >>> idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's >>> weird to >>> claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of >>> being >>> specific about it. >> >> He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person >> who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He >> knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing >> mathematical results about mathematical objects. >> >> What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems >> about mathematical objects? >> >>>> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >>>> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >>>> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >>>> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >>>> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank >>>> ever >>>> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >>>> cases, even understand it). >>> >>> no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, >> >> There is no paradox. > > i'm gunna say this a million times, eh??? > > *the halting paradox is a paradox like how the liar's paradox is a paradox* > When an input D to a decider H is encoded to do the opposite of whatever H returns this H/D pair is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. The above definitively proves that the Liar Paradox is semantically unsound because its resolution has an infinite resolution loop. Because the halting problem is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox the Halting Problem is refuted by proxy. So more than a mere paradox both the Halting Problem and the Liar Paradox are rejected as errors of reasoning. When we start with a complete set of atomic facts of the world expressed in language and the only inference step allowed is semantic logical entailment then no paradox can be derived and True(Language L, Expression E) can always be computed. The language to encode all of this is an extended form of Montague Grammar uniting syntax and semantics as one. This discards the whole notice of model theory. It makes a syntactic proof the same thing as semantic logical entailment. The Atomic facts of the world are stored in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. > they work the same way: if you try to "decide" the math object into a > set classifying it's semantics, then the object will take that > classification and defy the classification, making it impossible to > decide upon. > >> >>> they all focus on the halting problem which wasn't what turing >>> specifically >>> worked on. >> >> Since Turing was interested in the mathematics (the >> Entscheidungsproblem) and not the practicality of what we now call >> "computing" he rattles off what we now call the halting theorem and a >> couple of other (to him) trivial results without giving them either a >> name or much weight, except in that the advance his main goal. > > yes, he was using them as building blocks in his proof > >> >>> turing uses a "satisfactory" problem to support godel's incompleteness >>> not the halting problem, >> >> No. I'm not sure what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' problem" because > > /A number which is a description number of a circle-free machine will be > called a satisfactory number. In §8 it is shown that there can be no > general process for determining whether a given number is satisfactory > or not/ [Tur36 p241] > > after turing spends §1-§7 defining turing machine, §8 is where he proves > the "halting theorem" as you say. in that proof he's really proving > there's no way to prove a number "satisfactory" or more technically > "circle-free" > > big miss there buddy, the "satisfactory" paradox (inability to build a > general decider for "satisfactory" numbers) he describes §8 (on p247) in > is literally keystone contradiction he bases the rest of his undecidable > proof > >> Turing uses the term "satisfactory" only in relation to numbers. >> However, he is not supporting Godel's incompleteness theorem, he is > > he is 100% supporting godel's result > > /If the negation of what Godel has shown had been proved, i.e. if, for > each U, either U or —U is provable, then we should have an immediate > solution of the Entscheidungsproblem. For we can invent a machine H > which will prove consecutively all provable formulae. Sooner or later H > will reach either U or —U. If it reaches U, then we know that U is > provable. If it reaches —U, then, since K is consistent (Hilbert and > Ackermann, p. 65), we know that U is not provable/ [Tur36 p259] > > what he's doing is saying that if godel had proven otherwise (to > incompleteness) then there'd be some machine which would prove all > provable formulae > > because of this there must be some method to ensure such isn't > construct-able, and ultimately §11 is tying such a machine to the > previously disproveb notion (of §8) that a decider D that could > determine whether a given number is satisfactory: > > /We are now in a position to show that the Entscheidungsproblem cannot > be solved. Let us suppose the contrary. Then there is a general > (mechanical) process for determining whether Un(𝓜 ) is provable. By > Lemmas 1 and 2, this implies that there is a process for determining > whether 𝓜 ever prints 0, and this is impossible, by §8. Hence the > Entscheidungsproblem cannot be solved/ [Tur26 p262] > > yes he is ultimately also disproving the entscheidungsproblem, but he's > motivated in doing so specifically because it aligns with godel's > previous result, and his paper ultimately strengthens godel's result, > even if the specific method *is* quite different > >> using what we now call the halting theorem to derive results about >> computation numbers. In section 11 he says "It should perhaps be >> remarked what I shall prove is quite different from the well-known >> results of Gödel". >> >>> the halting problem variant was >>> first described by kleene and/or davis >> >> The term was indeed coined later, but the result is right there in the > > not just coined later, but also described later. turing specifically > tied his support of incompleteness to the "satisfactory number" paradox, > not halting paradox > >> paper along with two proofs. He was inventing the whole subject on the >> fly so it not surprising that we now use other terms, but a theorem by >> another name shall smell as sweet. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 03:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science |
| Message-ID | <87v7j2his6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136220 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > On 11/20/25 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>>>> >>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >>>> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >>>> problem altogether. >>>> >>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory >>>> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are >>>> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >>>> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >>>> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >>>> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >>>> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >>>> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a >>>> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >>>> order to believe this). >>> >>> literally his words: >>> >>> we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, >>> ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied >>> with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into >>> sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any >>> moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol T(r)vwhich >>> is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The >>> symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The >>> "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, >>> "directly aware" [Tur36] >> Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, > > several times end to end??? Yes. I taught this material at a UK university for many years. > i'm smelling some bs my dude, sorry bout that, but i'm going to > have quote turing a bunch to show how ur quite mistaken about the paper. > > i haven't read the paper thoroughly end to end. i've only read certain sections thoroughly and > skimmed it end to end. most of my focus has into specifically §8, and have read that *very* > thoroughly. i then skimmed the rest of the paper concentration specifically on how the results > of of §8 are used to justify conclusions in the following sections. i've mostly ignored before > §8 since he was mostly just constructing turing machines, but have a rough idea what's going > on. And you *haven't* read it thoroughly end to end??? >> working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a >> mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. >> >>> idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's weird to >>> claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of being >>> specific about it. >> He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person >> who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He >> knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing >> mathematical results about mathematical objects. >> What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems >> about mathematical objects? >> >>>> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >>>> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >>>> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >>>> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >>>> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever >>>> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >>>> cases, even understand it). >>> >>> no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, >> There is no paradox. > > i'm gunna say this a million times, eh??? > > *the halting paradox is a paradox like how the liar's paradox is a > paradox* I know this is a modern form of proof -- just keep saying it -- but it remains false. > they work the same way: if you try to "decide" the math object into a set classifying it's > semantics, then the object will take that classification and defy the classification, making it > impossible to decide upon. No. Every "object" in the input set can be correctly decided. It took me years to get PO to admit the "every instance of the halting problem has a correct yes/no answer". Even so, he then he went on to deny it again later. Do you also deny this? >>> they all focus on the halting problem which wasn't what turing specifically >>> worked on. >> Since Turing was interested in the mathematics (the >> Entscheidungsproblem) and not the practicality of what we now call >> "computing" he rattles off what we now call the halting theorem and a >> couple of other (to him) trivial results without giving them either a >> name or much weight, except in that the advance his main goal. > > yes, he was using them as building blocks in his proof > >>> turing uses a "satisfactory" problem to support godel's incompleteness >>> not the halting problem, >> No. I'm not sure what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' problem" because > > /A number which is a description number of a circle-free machine will be called a satisfactory > number. In §8 it is shown that there can be no general process for determining whether a given > number is satisfactory or not/ [Tur36 p241] > > after turing spends §1-§7 defining turing machine, §8 is where he proves the "halting theorem" > as you say. in that proof he's really proving there's no way to prove a number "satisfactory" > or more technically "circle-free" > > big miss there buddy, the "satisfactory" paradox (inability to build a general decider for > "satisfactory" numbers) he describes §8 (on p247) in is literally keystone contradiction he > bases the rest of his undecidable proof This does not explain what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' problem". What do you mean by that term? Did you mean number rather than problem? What did I miss? >> Turing uses the term "satisfactory" only in relation to numbers. >> However, he is not supporting Godel's incompleteness theorem, he is > > he is 100% supporting godel's result > > /If the negation of what Godel has shown had been proved, i.e. if, for each U, either U or —U > is provable, then we should have an immediate solution of the Entscheidungsproblem. For we can > invent a machine H which will prove consecutively all provable formulae. Sooner or later H will > reach either U or —U. If it reaches U, then we know that U is provable. If it reaches —U, then, > since K is consistent (Hilbert and Ackermann, p. 65), we know that U is not provable/ [Tur36 > p259] > > what he's doing is saying that if godel had proven otherwise (to incompleteness) then there'd > be some machine which would prove all provable formulae Yes, but you have done a bit of deceptive edited of this exchange. His result supports Godel but that was not him aim as you seemed to be suggesting originally. > because of this there must be some method to ensure such isn't construct-able, and ultimately > §11 is tying such a machine to the previously disproveb notion (of §8) that a decider D that > could determine whether a given number is satisfactory: > > /We are now in a position to show that the Entscheidungsproblem cannot be solved. Let us > suppose the contrary. Then there is a general (mechanical) process for determining whether Un(𝓜 > ) is provable. By Lemmas 1 and 2, this implies that there is a process for determining whether > 𝓜 ever prints 0, and this is impossible, by §8. Hence the Entscheidungsproblem cannot be > solved/ [Tur26 p262] > > yes he is ultimately also disproving the entscheidungsproblem, but he's motivated in doing so > specifically because it aligns with godel's previous result, and his paper ultimately > strengthens godel's result, even if the specific method *is* quite > different I don't see how you know his motivation. The support of a well-known result seems incidental. Anyway, if all we disagree about is his internal motivation, there can be no factual resolution of the disagreement. >> using what we now call the halting theorem to derive results about >> computation numbers. In section 11 he says "It should perhaps be >> remarked what I shall prove is quite different from the well-known >> results of Gödel". >> >>> the halting problem variant was >>> first described by kleene and/or davis >> The term was indeed coined later, but the result is right there in the > > not just coined later, but also described later. turing specifically tied his support of > incompleteness to the "satisfactory number" paradox, not halting > paradox No. The halting theorem is there in the paper (but not so named). He tied his answer to the Entscheidungsproblem to the fact that there is no method to determine if a number is satisfactory to not (i.e. -- in modern language -- that there is not TM that can decide halting). >> paper along with two proofs. He was inventing the whole subject on the >> fly so it not surprising that we now use other terms, but a theorem by >> another name shall smell as sweet. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600 |
| Subject | halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <65-dnT5zktizsrz0nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #136242 |
On 11/21/2025 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > >> On 11/20/25 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>>>>> >>>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >>>>> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >>>>> problem altogether. >>>>> >>>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory >>>>> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are >>>>> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >>>>> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >>>>> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >>>>> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >>>>> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >>>>> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a >>>>> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >>>>> order to believe this). >>>> >>>> literally his words: >>>> >>>> we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, >>>> ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied >>>> with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into >>>> sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any >>>> moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol T(r)vwhich >>>> is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The >>>> symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The >>>> "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, >>>> "directly aware" [Tur36] >>> Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, >> >> several times end to end??? > > Yes. I taught this material at a UK university for many years. > >> i'm smelling some bs my dude, sorry bout that, but i'm going to >> have quote turing a bunch to show how ur quite mistaken about the paper. >> >> i haven't read the paper thoroughly end to end. i've only read certain sections thoroughly and >> skimmed it end to end. most of my focus has into specifically §8, and have read that *very* >> thoroughly. i then skimmed the rest of the paper concentration specifically on how the results >> of of §8 are used to justify conclusions in the following sections. i've mostly ignored before >> §8 since he was mostly just constructing turing machines, but have a rough idea what's going >> on. > > And you *haven't* read it thoroughly end to end??? > >>> working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a >>> mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. >>> >>>> idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's weird to >>>> claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of being >>>> specific about it. >>> He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person >>> who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He >>> knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing >>> mathematical results about mathematical objects. >>> What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems >>> about mathematical objects? >>> >>>>> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >>>>> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >>>>> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >>>>> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >>>>> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever >>>>> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >>>>> cases, even understand it). >>>> >>>> no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, >>> There is no paradox. >> >> i'm gunna say this a million times, eh??? >> >> *the halting paradox is a paradox like how the liar's paradox is a >> paradox* > > I know this is a modern form of proof -- just keep saying it -- but it > remains false. > >> they work the same way: if you try to "decide" the math object into a set classifying it's >> semantics, then the object will take that classification and defy the classification, making it >> impossible to decide upon. > > No. Every "object" in the input set can be correctly decided. It took > me years to get PO to admit the "every instance of the halting problem > has a correct yes/no answer". Even so, he then he went on to deny it > again later. Do you also deny this? > That was a mistake that I made on an insufficient basis. I had this insight 21 years ago yet could not state it with exact precision until about a week ago. With the halting problem counter example input where input D does the opposite of whatever decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. The Liar Paradox is provably unsound in that its evaluation sequence remains stuck in an infinite loop: ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. *A Phd computer science professor agrees* Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fre19$6hpu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136243 |
On 22/11/2025 03:34, olcott wrote: > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever > decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly > isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. Previously you said the liar is hidden inside halting. Now you say it's exactly isomorphic! Are you training an expert system? -- 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 | 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251121220635.872@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136243 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever > decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly > isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any proposition with an indeterminate truth value. You are too incompetent to understand what a homeomorphism is and how to prove one. All you are saying is that the situation vaguely /feels/ like it resembles the Liar Paradox, and that legitimizes you to use a term like "isomorphism". -- 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 | 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fsd3b$f5ku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136252 |
On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> With the halting problem counter example input >> where input D does the opposite of whatever >> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly >> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. > > No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate > truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any > proposition with an indeterminate truth value. > With the halting problem counter example input where input D does the opposite of whatever decider H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. When the behavior of D depends on the return value of H and D does the opposite of whatever H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer. Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer is isomorphic to this question: Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ? What correct Boolean value should H return to D? > You are too incompetent to understand what a homeomorphism is and how to > prove one. > > All you are saying is that the situation vaguely /feels/ > like it resembles the Liar Paradox, and that legitimizes > you to use a term like "isomorphism". > > -- 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 | 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122084031.223@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136260 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>> With the halting problem counter example input >>> where input D does the opposite of whatever >>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly >>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. >> >> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate >> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any >> proposition with an indeterminate truth value. >> > > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever decider > H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly > isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. > > When the behavior of D depends on the return > value of H and D does the opposite of whatever > H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question > that lacks a correct yes/no answer. Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value. > Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer > is isomorphic to this question: The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0. It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words" in "This sentence has four words". > Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ? > What correct Boolean value should H return to D? The correct value is 1. -- 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 | 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fsr0u$l7aq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136267 |
On 11/22/2025 10:45 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever
>>>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly
>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate
>>> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any
>>> proposition with an indeterminate truth value.
>>>
>>
>> With the halting problem counter example input
>> where input D does the opposite of whatever decider
>> H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly
>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>
>> When the behavior of D depends on the return
>> value of H and D does the opposite of whatever
>> H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question
>> that lacks a correct yes/no answer.
>
> Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar
> Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a
> contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five
> contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there
> is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value.
>
>> Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer
>> is isomorphic to this question:
>
> The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0.
> It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words"
> in "This sentence has four words".
Neither return value is correct because D does
the opposite of whatever value is returned just
like "This sentence is not true" is true if it
is not true and not true if it is true, thus
it is neither true nor false therefore not a
proposition.
>
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>> What correct Boolean value should H return to D?
>
> The correct value is 1.
>
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
You know that you are lying about this. Does that
give you a cheap thrill?
--
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 | 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122093606.59@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136268 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.theory.]
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2025 10:45 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly
>>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate
>>>> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any
>>>> proposition with an indeterminate truth value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever decider
>>> H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly
>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>> When the behavior of D depends on the return
>>> value of H and D does the opposite of whatever
>>> H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question
>>> that lacks a correct yes/no answer.
>>
>> Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar
>> Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a
>> contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five
>> contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there
>> is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value.
>>
>>> Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer
>>> is isomorphic to this question:
>>
>> The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0.
>> It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words"
>> in "This sentence has four words".
>
> Neither return value is correct because D does
No, since 0 is incorrect, 1 is correct.
D() terminates.
> the opposite of whatever value is returned just
> like "This sentence is not true" is true if it
No, it is a bit like 'This sentence has four words".
The claim made by the sentence is incorrect;
the correct claim is five.
> is not true and not true if it is true, thus
> it is neither true nor false therefore not a
> proposition.
No such thng is going on in the H(D) case. H(D) returns false. D() then
terminates.
It is we, the outside observer, who remark that H(D)'s return value
doesn't match the D behavior.
But we are not part of the test case.
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>>> What correct Boolean value should H return to D?
>>
>> The correct value is 1.
>>
>
> int D()
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(D);
Here we can replace H(D) by 0 without changing D because
we know that term has that value. This is a valid mathematical
substitution.
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> You know that you are lying about this. Does that
> give you a cheap thrill?
You yourself know that D() returns at that UTM(D) returns 1.
--
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 | 2025-11-22 11:48 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fst0i$m3qq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136269 |
On 11/22/2025 11:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.theory.]
> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/22/2025 10:45 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly
>>>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate
>>>>> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any
>>>>> proposition with an indeterminate truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever decider
>>>> H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly
>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> When the behavior of D depends on the return
>>>> value of H and D does the opposite of whatever
>>>> H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question
>>>> that lacks a correct yes/no answer.
>>>
>>> Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar
>>> Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a
>>> contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five
>>> contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there
>>> is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value.
>>>
>>>> Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer
>>>> is isomorphic to this question:
>>>
>>> The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0.
>>> It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words"
>>> in "This sentence has four words".
>>
>> Neither return value is correct because D does
>
> No, since 0 is incorrect, 1 is correct.
> D() terminates.
>
>> the opposite of whatever value is returned just
>> like "This sentence is not true" is true if it
>
> No, it is a bit like 'This sentence has four words".
> The claim made by the sentence is incorrect;
> the correct claim is five.
>
>> is not true and not true if it is true, thus
>> it is neither true nor false therefore not a
>> proposition.
>
> No such thng is going on in the H(D) case. H(D) returns false. D() then
> terminates.
>
> It is we, the outside observer, who remark that H(D)'s return value
> doesn't match the D behavior.
>
> But we are not part of the test case.
>
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>>>> What correct Boolean value should H return to D?
>>>
>>> The correct value is 1.
>>>
>>
>> int D()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>
> Here we can replace H(D) by 0 without changing D because
> we know that term has that value. This is a valid mathematical
> substitution.
>
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> You know that you are lying about this. Does that
>> give you a cheap thrill?
>
> You yourself know that D() returns at that UTM(D) returns 1.
>
You know that "this sentence is not true" is true
if it is not true and not true if it is true,
likewise H(D) is wrong no matter what it returns.
This is the simplest way to prove that the halting
problem has always only been incorrect.
--
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 | 2025-11-22 18:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122095644.388@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136270 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2025 11:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2025 10:45 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly
>>>>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate
>>>>>> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any
>>>>>> proposition with an indeterminate truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever decider
>>>>> H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly
>>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the behavior of D depends on the return
>>>>> value of H and D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>> H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question
>>>>> that lacks a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar
>>>> Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a
>>>> contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five
>>>> contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there
>>>> is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value.
>>>>
>>>>> Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer
>>>>> is isomorphic to this question:
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0.
>>>> It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words"
>>>> in "This sentence has four words".
>>>
>>> Neither return value is correct because D does
>>
>> No, since 0 is incorrect, 1 is correct.
>> D() terminates.
>>
>>> the opposite of whatever value is returned just
>>> like "This sentence is not true" is true if it
>>
>> No, it is a bit like 'This sentence has four words".
>> The claim made by the sentence is incorrect;
>> the correct claim is five.
>>
>>> is not true and not true if it is true, thus
>>> it is neither true nor false therefore not a
>>> proposition.
>>
>> No such thng is going on in the H(D) case. H(D) returns false. D() then
>> terminates.
>>
>> It is we, the outside observer, who remark that H(D)'s return value
>> doesn't match the D behavior.
>>
>> But we are not part of the test case.
>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>>>>> What correct Boolean value should H return to D?
>>>>
>>>> The correct value is 1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> int D()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>
>> Here we can replace H(D) by 0 without changing D because
>> we know that term has that value. This is a valid mathematical
>> substitution.
>>
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> You know that you are lying about this. Does that
>>> give you a cheap thrill?
>>
>> You yourself know that D() returns at that UTM(D) returns 1.
>>
>
> You know that "this sentence is not true" is true
> if it is not true and not true if it is true,
Yes.
> likewise H(D) is wrong no matter what it returns.
H(D) returns 0, and that is wrong, but 1 is right, because we can
observe that D halts.
Just like "Ths sentence has four words" is wrong because we can observe
that sentence has five words.
An observer is required to close the logical evaluation loop, which
breaks the self-reference.
> This is the simplest way to prove that the halting
> problem has always only been incorrect.
H(D) does not try to adjust its return value based on what D
does in response to its return value.
You can imagine a mathematician adjusting the definition of H in
response to what D does. But that mathematician is not part of H; he or
she is an outside evaluator. Furthermore, dedesigning H creates a
different D, making it a different decideer/input pair.
In the Liar Paradox, we do not have to imagine that the sentence is
being redesigned. The Liar Paradox sentence is always the same; the
observer/evaluator becomes perplexed by trying to assign it a value.
The observer of H(D) doesn't have anything to be perplexed about;
all values are settled.
Your philosophical view on this is completely wrong; you believe that
even when an observer is necessary in order to identify a contradiction
that exists over fixed, stable values, it is still self-referentially
unstable.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web