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 19 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 Next page →
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 22:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fb0bt$3pshh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135732 |
On 15/11/2025 22:02, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Just like "This sentence is six words long".
No, that's wrong. "This sentence" is not a valid self reference. You
need something like an axiom:
⊢ g ≡ G("The sentence with number equal to g is eleven words long")
and the statement:
⊢ The sentence with number equal to g is eleven words long
Or some corresponding formulation with either variables or least-defined
fixed-points.
You ought to know this and avoid perpetuating the "This sentence" myth.
It's clear that by the time of Goedel's argument that was understood and
that was before you were born.
I don't think you can even construct an expression with the goedel
number embedded at the end and still have a self-reference (but I
haven't proved that to myself, it's difficult and I'm not yet so motivated).
--
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 | 2025-11-15 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251115145945.321@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135742 |
On 2025-11-15, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 15/11/2025 22:02, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> Just like "This sentence is six words long".
>
> No, that's wrong. "This sentence" is not a valid self reference.
We control the syntax and semantics, so we can simply grant it as a fac
that "this sentence" refers to the artifact of syntax comprising the
surrounding clause.
The sentence then has a true interpretation, because the syntax
it refers to (its own) has six words.
> need something like an axiom:
>
> ⊢ g ≡ G("The sentence with number equal to g is eleven words long")
>
> and the statement:
>
> ⊢ The sentence with number equal to g is eleven words long
Sure; in Gödel's proof there is a formal mode of self-reference by
numbering rather than a convenient pronoun.
But one reason that is necessary is that he wants to show that number
theory to be semantically self referential, since formulas can be
manipulated as numbers.
I don't need anything like that for "This sentence has six words".
> You ought to know this and avoid perpetuating the "This sentence" myth.
We can formally introduce a language in which a certain syntax encodes
a reference to a surrounding term. It could have a numeric argument
indicating how many levels of nesting it spans.
Say the symbol @ followed by a digit, like @1.
Semantically, this @<n> syntax will be a primary term, on the
same order as a variable identifier.
The term @0 refers to itself and is ill-formed, since it has
no value.
The Liar Paradox can be expressed like this, where ~ is
the negation symbol.
~@1
We need 1 to go up the abstract syntax tree one level to the ~
negation node. Thus ~@1 refers to the whole thing including
the ~, and it is asserting that that is false.
The standard read syntax of the ANSI Common Lisp language supports
a "circle notation" that allows for self-reference. It has been adopted
into other dialects like Scheme, Emacs Lisp, TXR Lisp.
When an expression is preceded by #<n>= where <n> is a decimal
integer, that integer becomes a label denoting that object.
Then later in another part of the surrounding expression, or
inside that labeled expression itself #<n># can be used to
reproduce that expression.
A circular list (a b a b ...) looks like this #1=(a b . #1#).
The list starts with a b, and then has a tail (cdr field) which is that
list.
If we use Lisp to encode logical terms like (and a (or b c) (not d))
we could express the Liar paradox like this:
#1=(not #1#)
Thenot is asserting that #1# is false, and #1# is a reference to that
(not ...) expression itself.
Here is how the CLISP implementation of Common Lisp handles it:
[1]> #1=(not #1#)
*** - Program stack overflow. RESET
This is that cycle in the evaluation graph that is the pinnacle of
Olcott's intellect. (More precisely, prior to evaluation, the Lisp
implementation is initialy traversing the form to look for macros to
expand, and that walk ends up infinitely recursive; it never gets to
choke on evaluation.)
OK, so that's Liar. Can we represent "this sentence has six words"
type of stuff?
A resounding yes!
And you see to do that, we are going to have to use the Lisp QUOTE
operator. That prevents evaluation. So there is no evaluation cycle.
[2]> #1=(eql 3 (length '#1#))
T
Here we have encoded "this expression has three elements",
and it evaluates to true.
Those three elements are the expressions eql, 3 and (length ...):
the eql function and its two arguments.
#1# refers to the whole (eql ...) expression. To talk /about/
it rather than obtain its /value/, we quote it with '.
Then we take its length, which is 3. That is equal to 3,
so true.
According to Olcott, quite incorrectly, this is supposed to be an
ill-formed expression due to a cycle in the directed evaluation graph.
As usual, he has no clue what he's talking about. Not all mentions of
something are evaluations.
--
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 | 2025-11-15 17:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fb2hm$3qmae$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135747 |
On 11/15/2025 5:30 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-15, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 15/11/2025 22:02, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> Just like "This sentence is six words long". >> >> No, that's wrong. "This sentence" is not a valid self reference. > > We control the syntax and semantics, so we can simply grant it as a fac > that "this sentence" refers to the artifact of syntax comprising the > surrounding clause. > > The sentence then has a true interpretation, because the syntax > it refers to (its own) has six words. > I agree with that. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 00:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fb4ou$3r18t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135747 |
On 15/11/2025 23:30, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-15, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 15/11/2025 22:02, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> Just like "This sentence is six words long". >> >> No, that's wrong. "This sentence" is not a valid self reference. > > We control the syntax and semantics, so we can simply grant it as a fac > that "this sentence" refers to the artifact of syntax comprising the > surrounding clause. > > The sentence then has a true interpretation, because the syntax > it refers to (its own) has six words. Once you've defined it so, but then you're just making it difficult to pretend you were being helpful because it's obviously got a non-meaning in natural language. Just say "Kylheku is five words long" wherein Kylheku always refers to the quotation of the smallest surrounding clause. > We can formally introduce a language in which a certain syntax encodes > a reference to a surrounding term. It could have a numeric argument > indicating how many levels of nesting it spans. Yes! We have to get away from "This sentence". ... fine proposal snipped ... > And you see to do that, we are going to have to use the Lisp QUOTE > operator. That prevents evaluation. So there is no evaluation cycle. probably. Since Olcott has a problem with the lack of formal semantics for C he should probably go for Scheme (avoiding define-syntax and let-syntex, etc) which has formal semantics. But it's still merely turing complete and not corresponding to a turing machine. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10fd630$bfbt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135752 |
On 16/11/2025 00:10, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > Since Olcott has a problem with the lack of formal semantics for C he > should probably go for Scheme (avoiding define-syntax and let-syntex, > etc) Actually no, to make full use of its quoting, you'd need define-syntax. But then it's very complex, too. What goal are we really talking about trying to achieve anyway? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 18:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fdr09$hc35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135799 |
On 11/16/2025 12:44 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 16/11/2025 00:10, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > >> Since Olcott has a problem with the lack of formal semantics for C he >> should probably go for Scheme (avoiding define-syntax and let-syntex, >> etc) > > Actually no, to make full use of its quoting, you'd need define-syntax. > But then it's very complex, too. > > What goal are we really talking about trying to achieve anyway? > See my new signature line. > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 17:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fb20h$3qima$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135732 |
On 11/15/2025 4:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/15/2025 2:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>>>> >>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an >>>>> inaccurate result. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >>>> even looking at them. >>> >>> That cannot possibly be true; they had to go into it far >>> enough to see the gaping falsehood, and /then/ reject it. >>> >>> That's what makes experts experts. They know their stuff and >>> so can spot something wrong before you can bat an eyelash. >>> >> >> That is not how it went down. >> They rejected my paper on the basis of its title >> and did not even glance at any of the words. > > Do you have eye tracking data to back this, or is this just more of your > usual guesswork? > > Were you physically present in the same room? > >> >>> /You/ are what is "conventional". You're a bumbling idiot off >>> the street who thinks he is right in matters he has no clue >>> about. Your kind outnumber proper intellectuals /many thousands/ to one, >>> by a conservative estimate. >>> >>> The results of Gödel and Turing are not conventional wisdom; >>> they required unconventional thinking, far removed from >>> the reveries of the average conventional twit. >>> >>> "Conventional wisdom" is stuff like this "if you don't >>> wear your jacket, you will catch pneumonia". >>> >> >> Conventional wisdom is that this proves undecidability. >> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) > > No, that is very unconventional. The average human has no > clue about what that is about. Conventional wisdom within the field knucklehead. > >> Unconventional wisdom is that this: G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >> proves to be semantically ill-founded because it >> has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >> sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop thus >> preventing evaluation. > > That's just wrong nonsense, stemming from your gaping misunderstanding > of Gödel. > If that was true then you could explain in complete detail exactly why "a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop" is just fine. You dodge because you have no idea what any of those words mean. The only reason that I know what those words mean is that I spent 18 months creating Olcott's Minimal Type Theory to encode this: G := ~(F ⊢ G) YACC MTT https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2 -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 01:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251115165312.245@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135745 |
On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2025 4:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/15/2025 2:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>>>>> >>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an >>>>>> inaccurate result. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >>>>> even looking at them. >>>> >>>> That cannot possibly be true; they had to go into it far >>>> enough to see the gaping falsehood, and /then/ reject it. >>>> >>>> That's what makes experts experts. They know their stuff and >>>> so can spot something wrong before you can bat an eyelash. >>>> >>> >>> That is not how it went down. >>> They rejected my paper on the basis of its title >>> and did not even glance at any of the words. >> >> Do you have eye tracking data to back this, or is this just more of your >> usual guesswork? >> >> Were you physically present in the same room? >> >>> >>>> /You/ are what is "conventional". You're a bumbling idiot off >>>> the street who thinks he is right in matters he has no clue >>>> about. Your kind outnumber proper intellectuals /many thousands/ to one, >>>> by a conservative estimate. >>>> >>>> The results of Gödel and Turing are not conventional wisdom; >>>> they required unconventional thinking, far removed from >>>> the reveries of the average conventional twit. >>>> >>>> "Conventional wisdom" is stuff like this "if you don't >>>> wear your jacket, you will catch pneumonia". >>>> >>> >>> Conventional wisdom is that this proves undecidability. >>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >> >> No, that is very unconventional. The average human has no >> clue about what that is about. > > Conventional wisdom within the field knucklehead. A convention is just something arbitrarily agreed upon. It is wise to have conventions, but conventions are not wisdom. E.g. in mathematics it is conventional to use Greek symbols in certain way, to the point that we call the change in some function "delta". Conventions are also gatherings of people from the same field or industry. The truths that you are vainly struggling against are not conventions. Halting being incomputable is not a convention like using x for an independent variable and y for a dependent one. It's a solid result that holds regardless of what conventions are used to represent its moving parts. >> >>> Unconventional wisdom is that this: G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>> proves to be semantically ill-founded because it >>> has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >>> sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop thus >>> preventing evaluation. >> >> That's just wrong nonsense, stemming from your gaping misunderstanding >> of Gödel. >> > > If that was true then you could explain in complete > detail exactly why > > "a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation > sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop" Because, firstly, Prov(G) doesn't evaluate G; it quotes G. Evaluate means to reduce to a value. Prov(G) is an operator on G itself; it doesn't reduce it to a value. Secondly Gödel used a numbering system. He didn't actually define an expression bound to the name G, which asserts that G is not provable. He defined ane expression which asserted that a certain concrete number is not a proof-number. Gödel didn't perpetrate a point-blank syntactic self-reference. -- 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 | 2025-11-15 19:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fb9ep$3s893$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135757 |
On 11/15/2025 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/15/2025 4:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/15/2025 2:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an >>>>>>> inaccurate result. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums >>>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without >>>>>> even looking at them. >>>>> >>>>> That cannot possibly be true; they had to go into it far >>>>> enough to see the gaping falsehood, and /then/ reject it. >>>>> >>>>> That's what makes experts experts. They know their stuff and >>>>> so can spot something wrong before you can bat an eyelash. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is not how it went down. >>>> They rejected my paper on the basis of its title >>>> and did not even glance at any of the words. >>> >>> Do you have eye tracking data to back this, or is this just more of your >>> usual guesswork? >>> >>> Were you physically present in the same room? >>> >>>> >>>>> /You/ are what is "conventional". You're a bumbling idiot off >>>>> the street who thinks he is right in matters he has no clue >>>>> about. Your kind outnumber proper intellectuals /many thousands/ to one, >>>>> by a conservative estimate. >>>>> >>>>> The results of Gödel and Turing are not conventional wisdom; >>>>> they required unconventional thinking, far removed from >>>>> the reveries of the average conventional twit. >>>>> >>>>> "Conventional wisdom" is stuff like this "if you don't >>>>> wear your jacket, you will catch pneumonia". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Conventional wisdom is that this proves undecidability. >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>> >>> No, that is very unconventional. The average human has no >>> clue about what that is about. >> >> Conventional wisdom within the field knucklehead. > > A convention is just something arbitrarily agreed upon. > > It is wise to have conventions, but conventions are not > wisdom. > > E.g. in mathematics it is conventional to use Greek symbols > in certain way, to the point that we call the change in > some function "delta". > > Conventions are also gatherings of people from the same > field or industry. > > The truths that you are vainly struggling against are not > conventions. > > Halting being incomputable is not a convention like using > x for an independent variable and y for a dependent one. > > It's a solid result that holds regardless of what conventions > are used to represent its moving parts. > >>> >>>> Unconventional wisdom is that this: G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> proves to be semantically ill-founded because it >>>> has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >>>> sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop thus >>>> preventing evaluation. >>> >>> That's just wrong nonsense, stemming from your gaping misunderstanding >>> of Gödel. >>> >> >> If that was true then you could explain in complete >> detail exactly why >> >> "a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >> sequence forming an infinite evaluation loop" > > Because, firstly, Prov(G) doesn't evaluate G; it quotes G. > G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Directed Graph of evaluation sequence 00 ↔ 01 02 01 G 02 ¬ 03 03 Prov 04 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle The cycle means that computing the LHS is stuck in an infinite loop. This does not mean undecidable it means semantically unsound just like this: ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. This sentence is not true. What is it not true about? It is not true about being not true. What is it not true about being not true about? It is not true about being not true about being not true. Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 19:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fd7ll$bfbt$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135764 |
On 16/11/2025 01:29, olcott wrote: > G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) > Directed Graph of evaluation sequence > 00 ↔ 01 02 > 01 G > 02 ¬ 03 > 03 Prov 04 > 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle I would argue that ⊢ G := ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) is not a theorem. Before you find that a value of G exists (so that you may evaluate G) you must first find that the statement defining G is a theorem. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 18:52 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fdrki$hh9h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135801 |
On 11/16/2025 1:11 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 16/11/2025 01:29, olcott wrote: >> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >> 00 ↔ 01 02 >> 01 G >> 02 ¬ 03 >> 03 Prov 04 >> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle > > > I would argue that ⊢ G := ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) is not a theorem. Before you find > that a value of G exists (so that you may evaluate G) you must first > find that the statement defining G is a theorem. > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom It is the G sentence of the first incompleteness theorem. ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). G = not(provable(F, G)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). false. It has a cycle proving that it cannot be resolved because it remains stuck in an infinite loop. > > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 01:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fdun1$i3iq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135818 |
On 17/11/2025 00:52, olcott wrote: > On 11/16/2025 1:11 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 16/11/2025 01:29, olcott wrote: >>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>> 01 G >>> 02 ¬ 03 >>> 03 Prov 04 >>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >> >> >> I would argue that ⊢ G := ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) is not a theorem. Before you find >> that a value of G exists (so that you may evaluate G) you must first >> find that the statement defining G is a theorem. >> > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom > It is the G sentence of the first incompleteness theorem. > > ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). > G = not(provable(F, G)). > > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). > false. > > It has a cycle proving that it cannot be resolved > because it remains stuck in an infinite loop. A proposition that claims G so defined is not a theorem, therefore G is not so defined. It is not a theorem based on proof by contradiction: Suppose a proposition derive absurdity from it conclude the proposition is not a theorem Suppose G := not(provable(F, G)) derive absurdity (G contradicts itself) conclude G :≠ not(provable(F,G)) We're not about to say that proof by contradiction is invalid. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 20:13 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fe0cm$ii0f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135821 |
On 11/16/2025 7:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 17/11/2025 00:52, olcott wrote: >> On 11/16/2025 1:11 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 16/11/2025 01:29, olcott wrote: >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>> 01 G >>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>> >>> >>> I would argue that ⊢ G := ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) is not a theorem. Before you find >>> that a value of G exists (so that you may evaluate G) you must first >>> find that the statement defining G is a theorem. >>> >> >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom >> It is the G sentence of the first incompleteness theorem. >> >> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). >> G = not(provable(F, G)). >> >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). >> false. >> >> It has a cycle proving that it cannot be resolved >> because it remains stuck in an infinite loop. > > > A proposition that claims G so defined is not a theorem, therefore G is > not so defined. It is not a theorem based on proof by contradiction: > > > Suppose a proposition > derive absurdity from it > conclude the proposition is not a theorem > > > Suppose G := not(provable(F, G)) > derive absurdity (G contradicts itself) > conclude G :≠ not(provable(F,G)) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols G := (F ⊬ G) Means G "is defined as" (F ⊬ G) > > We're not about to say that proof by contradiction is invalid. > > It turns out that absurdity is the basis of the 1931 incompleteness theorem. *You simply erased my proof of this* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom It is the G sentence of the first incompleteness theorem. > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 03:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fe5hc$jgvq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135823 |
On 17/11/2025 02:13, olcott wrote: > It turns out that absurdity is the basis of the > 1931 incompleteness theorem. > > *You simply erased my proof of this* > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom > It is the G sentence of the first incompleteness theorem. *Takes a bow* I'm not yet ready to suppose that statements about the theorem or its proofs on plato.standford.edu are accurate. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 21:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fe62u$jlmo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135827 |
On 11/16/2025 9:41 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 17/11/2025 02:13, olcott wrote: >> It turns out that absurdity is the basis of the >> 1931 incompleteness theorem. >> >> *You simply erased my proof of this* >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom >> It is the G sentence of the first incompleteness theorem. > > *Takes a bow* > > I'm not yet ready to suppose that statements about the theorem or its > proofs on plato.standford.edu are accurate. > That is fine. Please don't erase the material that supports the position that I asserted. > > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 04:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) |
| Message-ID | <10fe6rm$job3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135830 |
On 17/11/2025 03:50, olcott wrote: > That is fine. Please don't erase the material that > supports the position that I asserted. What meaning do you ascribe to "erase". It seems to be not the same as I and everyone I ever heard or read using it before. -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 10:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10fc3iq$1nb5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135668 |
On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said: > On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their review on >>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do this. >>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either right or >>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't have seen >>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or "looks >>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something >>>>>> takes more time and work. >>>>> >>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does >>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it. >>>> >>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words >>>> belong to which. >>>> >>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without >>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject >>>> more than what the good reason requires. >>> >>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform >>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it. >> >> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an >> inaccurate result. > > I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums > and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without > even looking at them. How did you determine "without eve looking at them"? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fdcll$dj43$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135773 |
On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their
>>>>>>>> review on
>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do this.
>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either
>>>>>>>> right or
>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't
>>>>>>> have seen
>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or
>>>>>>> "looks
>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something
>>>>>>> takes more time and work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does
>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words
>>>>> belong to which.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without
>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject
>>>>> more than what the good reason requires.
>>>>
>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform
>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.
>>>
>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an
>>> inaccurate result.
>>
>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums
>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without
>> even looking at them.
>
> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"?
>
A tenured PhD computer science professor
has a very well documented equivalent
experience many different times in many
different ways.
"Something is wrong with the halting problem"
is immediately translated into {crackpot}.
The way that I can tell in my hundreds of
cases is that they said I was wrong and
never provided any reasoning what-so-ever
about how and why I was wrong.
Technical people in the fields of computer
science, math and logic has an emotional
attachment to the foundational assumptions
that is equivalent to a religion.
On the sole basis that the reasoning is correct
within these foundational assumptions they
construe this as absolute proof that these
assumptions are true.
It is like they don't have a clue that sound
deduction is not the same as valid deduction.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if
it is both valid, and all of its premises are
actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument
is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 11:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10feos4$o065$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135804 |
On 2025-11-16 20:37:07 +0000, olcott said:
> On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their review on
>>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do this.
>>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either right or
>>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't have seen
>>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or "looks
>>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something
>>>>>>>> takes more time and work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does
>>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words
>>>>>> belong to which.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without
>>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject
>>>>>> more than what the good reason requires.
>>>>>
>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform
>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.
>>>>
>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an
>>>> inaccurate result.
>>>
>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums
>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without
>>> even looking at them.
>>
>> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"?
>
> A tenured PhD computer science professor
> has a very well documented equivalent
> experience many different times in many
> different ways.
>
> "Something is wrong with the halting problem"
> is immediately translated into {crackpot}.
>
> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of
> cases is that they said I was wrong and
> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever
> about how and why I was wrong.
>
> Technical people in the fields of computer
> science, math and logic has an emotional
> attachment to the foundational assumptions
> that is equivalent to a religion.
>
> On the sole basis that the reasoning is correct
> within these foundational assumptions they
> construe this as absolute proof that these
> assumptions are true.
>
> It is like they don't have a clue that sound
> deduction is not the same as valid deduction.
>
> A deductive argument is sound if and only if
> it is both valid, and all of its premises are
> actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument
> is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction.
None of the above answers the question. That can only mean that
you don't want to answer the question and don't want readers to
realize that you don't want to answer it. That can only mean that
you know the answer but don't want others to know it, apparently
because the answer would show that something you said or did is
wrong.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 07:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ff8r7$si6o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135848 |
On 11/17/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-11-16 20:37:07 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>>>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their
>>>>>>>>>> review on
>>>>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right. Intelligent people do not do
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either
>>>>>>>>>> right or
>>>>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't
>>>>>>>>> have seen
>>>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors"
>>>>>>>>> or "looks
>>>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> takes more time and work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does
>>>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which
>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>> belong to which.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without
>>>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to
>>>>>>> reject
>>>>>>> more than what the good reason requires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform
>>>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99%
>>>>> is an
>>>>> inaccurate result.
>>>>
>>>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums
>>>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without
>>>> even looking at them.
>>>
>>> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"?
>>
*Quoted from below, thus already asnwered*
The way that I can tell in my hundreds of
cases is that they said I was wrong and
never provided any reasoning what-so-ever
about how and why I was wrong.
This indicates that the rejected the post
entirely on the basis of its title.
>> A tenured PhD computer science professor
>> has a very well documented equivalent
>> experience many different times in many
>> different ways.
>>
>> "Something is wrong with the halting problem"
>> is immediately translated into {crackpot}.
>>
>> The way that I can tell in my hundreds of
>> cases is that they said I was wrong and
>> never provided any reasoning what-so-ever
>> about how and why I was wrong.
>>
>> Technical people in the fields of computer
>> science, math and logic has an emotional
>> attachment to the foundational assumptions
>> that is equivalent to a religion.
>>
>> On the sole basis that the reasoning is correct
>> within these foundational assumptions they
>> construe this as absolute proof that these
>> assumptions are true.
>>
>> It is like they don't have a clue that sound
>> deduction is not the same as valid deduction.
>>
>> A deductive argument is sound if and only if
>> it is both valid, and all of its premises are
>> actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument
>> is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>
> That looks like an attempt to deceive readers with a distraction.
Not at all. My reviewers have acted equivalently to
a strongly held belief that naive set theory is
infallibly correct and ZFC is crackpot nonsense.
> None of the above answers the question. That can only mean that
You were so sure that I must be wrong that you
didn't bother to pay attention to my answer to
the question.
> you don't want to answer the question and don't want readers to
> realize that you don't want to answer it. That can only mean that
> you know the answer but don't want others to know it, apparently
> because the answer would show that something you said or did is
> wrong.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web