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 4 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 23 Next page →
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 17:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ffm0u$2u40$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135872 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> [ .... ] >>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >>>>> It is not a falsehood. >>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >>>> this reason. >>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >> reply you made to my last post. > You have to read it all the way through. I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > What strikes me most about these reviews is that > they do not point out any error in my arguments > and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, > that I am making a claim that is contrary to the > current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing > proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's > in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's > abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no > need to read my arguments carefully. That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer science. One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of fruitless discussions which happen here. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10ffmfj$1100c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135873 |
On 11/17/2025 11:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > >>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. > >>>>>> It is not a falsehood. > >>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >>>>> this reason. > >>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf > >>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>> reply you made to my last post. > > >> You have to read it all the way through. > > I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > >> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >> they do not point out any error in my arguments >> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >> need to read my arguments carefully. > > That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though > mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large > amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like He is a tenured computer science professor with a PhD in computer science. His name was on the back cover of a journal as an editor of the journal that turned him down in a very insulting way. Halting misconceived? Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017 tenured computer science professor with a PhD in computer science. https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf > yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. > The Halting Theorem > is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer > science. > > One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of > fruitless discussions which happen here. > >> -- >> Copyright 2025 Olcott > >> My 28 year goal has been to make >> "true on the basis of meaning" computable. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fg31q$205v$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135874 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 11:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured >>>>>>>> professors don't go around asserting falsehoods in their own >>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. >>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>> sacked for this reason. >>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>> anybody being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in >>>> the other reply you made to my last post. >>> You have to read it all the way through. >> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. >>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>> need to read my arguments carefully. >> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. > He is a tenured computer science professor > with a PhD in computer science. But seemingly out of his depth with mathematics. > His name was on the back cover of a journal > as an editor of the journal that turned him down > in a very insulting way. That demonstrates the integrity of the journal in turning down nonsense, even that of one of its editors. > Halting misconceived? > Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017 > tenured computer science professor with a PhD in computer science. > https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf I've just read that paper, and it's so full of holes and hand-waving that it's wasn't really worth the effort. For example, he attributes twists he has created in what he ignorantly considers to be the only proof of the Halting Theorem to the theorem itself. He creates a "function" with a domain of three elements, and asserts that since the third element has no consitent image in this function, that it cannot be specified. This is wholly spurious hand-waving. He then goes on to assert that "We have no model for H [a purported halt decider] so it cannot have a consistent specification". Hand waving at its most blatant. Nowhere in this paper does Stoddart explain what "model" means (presumably it's some well known notion in computer science) nor why the lack of such a model implies a specification is not possible. The specification of a purported halt decider is simple and clear. It is a program which returns true if its input will halt, and false when it won't. Stoddart was out of his depth with the mathematical notions. He seemingly has no notion of a pure function; he uses "functions" which have knowledge of where they were called from. He somehow considers, like Peter Olcott, that the purported decider deciding on an input related to the decider is some special, invalid case. Somebody of more mathematical sophistication wouldn't make these mistakes. He accepts that there is no halting decider, but wrongly attributes that to the "impossibility" of specifying it. If this paper has ever been considered for respectable publication, I expect and hope that the editors would have rejected it. It is truly cranky. >> The Halting Theorem >> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >> science. >> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >> fruitless discussions which happen here. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 17:23 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgaqd$16vtj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135891 |
On 11/17/2025 3:11 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 11:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> [ .... ] > >>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > >>>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured >>>>>>>>> professors don't go around asserting falsehoods in their own >>>>>>>>> field. > >>>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. > >>>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>>> sacked for this reason. > >>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf > >>>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>>> anybody being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in >>>>> the other reply you made to my last post. > > >>>> You have to read it all the way through. > >>> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > >>>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>>> need to read my arguments carefully. > >>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >>> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >>> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >>> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >>> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. > >> He is a tenured computer science professor >> with a PhD in computer science. > > But seemingly out of his depth with mathematics. > >> His name was on the back cover of a journal >> as an editor of the journal that turned him down >> in a very insulting way. > > That demonstrates the integrity of the journal in turning down nonsense, > even that of one of its editors. > >> Halting misconceived? >> Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017 >> tenured computer science professor with a PhD in computer science. >> https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf > > I've just read that paper, and it's so full of holes and hand-waving that > it's wasn't really worth the effort. > > For example, he attributes twists he has created in what he ignorantly > considers to be the only proof of the Halting Theorem to the theorem > itself. > > He creates a "function" with a domain of three elements, and asserts that > since the third element has no consitent image in this function, that it > cannot be specified. This is wholly spurious hand-waving. > > He then goes on to assert that "We have no model for H [a purported halt > decider] so it cannot have a consistent specification". Hand waving at > its most blatant. Nowhere in this paper does Stoddart explain what > "model" means (presumably it's some well known notion in computer > science) nor why the lack of such a model implies a specification is not > possible. > > The specification of a purported halt decider is simple and clear. It is > a program which returns true if its input will halt, and false when it > won't. > > Stoddart was out of his depth with the mathematical notions. He > seemingly has no notion of a pure function; he uses "functions" which > have knowledge of where they were called from. He somehow considers, > like Peter Olcott, that the purported decider deciding on an input > related to the decider is some special, invalid case. Somebody of more > mathematical sophistication wouldn't make these mistakes. > > He accepts that there is no halting decider, but wrongly attributes that > to the "impossibility" of specifying it. > > If this paper has ever been considered for respectable publication, I > expect and hope that the editors would have rejected it. It is truly > cranky. > *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis that this [finite string] input specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic property. *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 23:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgbm0$205v$5@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135922 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] > *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. > Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from > their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject > state on the basis that this [finite string] input > specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic > property. Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant "only", too. > *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. > -- > 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 | 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgc34$179gb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135928 |
On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* > > There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. > >> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from >> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject >> state on the basis that this [finite string] input >> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic >> property. > > Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or > syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant > "only", too. > >> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* > > Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a > failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. > The above that I formed myself has key details that are simply assumed away from the conventional way this is stated: In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem Makes sure to not take into account that an input that calls its own decider specifies a different sequence of steps than this same input to a decider that it does not call. You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not specify recursive simulation the same way that you can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5. >> -- >> Copyright 2025 Olcott > >> My 28 year goal has been to make >> "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 00:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgd0o$205v$7@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135931 |
[ Newsgroups: trimmed ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> [ .... ] >>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* >> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. >>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from >>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject >>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input >>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic >>> property. >> Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or >> syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant >> "only", too. >>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* >> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a >> failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. > The above that I formed myself has key details that > are simply assumed away from the conventional way > this is stated: > In computability theory, the halting problem is > the problem of determining, from a description > of an arbitrary computer program and an input, > whether the program will finish running, or > continue to run forever. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > Makes sure to not take into account that an input > that calls its own decider specifies a different > sequence of steps than this same input to a decider > that it does not call. It does indeed so make sure, since taking those irrelevant details into account would change the nature of the problem, making it less tractable. Also inputs don't have deciders. There is no function whose domain is all possible inputs and whose range is deciders. > You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not > specify recursive simulation the same way that you > can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5. Not at all. 2 + 3 = 5 is trivially true, your other clause is just confusing, and probably false, depending on exactly what DD, simulated by, and HHH mean. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 18:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgeud$180g1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135935 |
On 11/17/2025 6:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Newsgroups: trimmed ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* > >>> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. > >>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from >>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject >>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input >>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic >>>> property. > >>> Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or >>> syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant >>> "only", too. > >>>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* > >>> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a >>> failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. > >> The above that I formed myself has key details that >> are simply assumed away from the conventional way >> this is stated: > >> In computability theory, the halting problem is >> the problem of determining, from a description >> of an arbitrary computer program and an input, >> whether the program will finish running, or >> continue to run forever. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > >> Makes sure to not take into account that an input >> that calls its own decider specifies a different >> sequence of steps than this same input to a decider >> that it does not call. > > It does indeed so make sure, since taking those irrelevant details into > account would change the nature of the problem, making it less tractable. > In other words you are too fucking stupid to recognize what is essentially the infinite recursion behavior pattern. It that it? -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 13:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fht9d$2hc3$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135942 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 6:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ] >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> [ .... ] >>>>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* >>>> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. >>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from >>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject >>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input >>>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic >>>>> property. >>>> Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or >>>> syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant >>>> "only", too. >>>>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* >>>> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a >>>> failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. >>> The above that I formed myself has key details that >>> are simply assumed away from the conventional way >>> this is stated: >>> In computability theory, the halting problem is >>> the problem of determining, from a description >>> of an arbitrary computer program and an input, >>> whether the program will finish running, or >>> continue to run forever. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>> Makes sure to not take into account that an input >>> that calls its own decider specifies a different >>> sequence of steps than this same input to a decider >>> that it does not call. >> It does indeed so make sure, since taking those irrelevant details into >> account would change the nature of the problem, making it less tractable. > In other words you are too fucking stupid to > recognize what is essentially the infinite > recursion behavior pattern. It that it? No, not at all. You shouldn't be so gratuitously offensive. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. I was talking at an abstract level, beyond your understanding. When such happens, you should just drop out of the conversation rather than sully it with obscenities. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fi2jg$1krmb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135982 |
On 11/18/2025 7:45 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 6:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ] > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> [ .... ] > >>>>>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* > >>>>> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. > >>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from >>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject >>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input >>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic >>>>>> property. > >>>>> Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or >>>>> syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant >>>>> "only", too. > >>>>>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* > >>>>> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a >>>>> failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. > >>>> The above that I formed myself has key details that >>>> are simply assumed away from the conventional way >>>> this is stated: > >>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is >>>> the problem of determining, from a description >>>> of an arbitrary computer program and an input, >>>> whether the program will finish running, or >>>> continue to run forever. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > >>>> Makes sure to not take into account that an input >>>> that calls its own decider specifies a different >>>> sequence of steps than this same input to a decider >>>> that it does not call. > >>> It does indeed so make sure, since taking those irrelevant details into >>> account would change the nature of the problem, making it less tractable. > >> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >> recognize what is essentially the infinite >> recursion behavior pattern. It that it? > > No, not at all. You shouldn't be so gratuitously offensive. It doesn't > add anything to the discussion. > That people have been consistently flat out dishonest about this every day for three years indicates the need for escalation. If you know nothing about programming and only know math then you should have disclosed that you don't have the mandatory prerequisites. > I was talking at an abstract level, beyond your understanding. When such > happens, you should just drop out of the conversation rather than sully > it with obscenities. > *The abstraction simply assumes away these key details* (a) Halt deciders are required to report on the actual behavior that their actual input actually specifies. (b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to report on other than the actual behavior that their actual input actually specifies making the halting problem incorrect. If you don't know anything about programming you won't be able to understand this. >> -- >> Copyright 2025 Olcott > >> My 28 year goal has been to make >> "true on the basis of meaning" computable. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251117182409.844@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135931 |
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* >> >> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. >> >>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from >>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject >>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input >>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic >>> property. >> >> Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or >> syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant >> "only", too. >> >>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* >> >> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a >> failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. >> > > The above that I formed myself has key details that > are simply assumed away from the conventional way > this is stated: > > In computability theory, the halting problem is > the problem of determining, from a description > of an arbitrary computer program and an input, > whether the program will finish running, or > continue to run forever. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > Makes sure to not take into account that an input > that calls its own decider specifies a different > sequence of steps than this same input to a decider > that it does not call. The input D does not "call its own decider". It incorporates an implementation of a particular decider algorithm, appiles it on itself, and then behaves contrary to its output. > You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not > specify recursive simulation the same way that you > can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5. It does! But (it has been shown with code, even, using your own framework!) that a recursive simulation can consist of a regenerating progression of /terminating/ simulations. It is possible that generation of new simulations never stops; but the simulations themselves terminate. (It's also possible that they don't terminate.) -- 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 | 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgqgu$1ai9o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135948 |
On 11/17/2025 8:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* >>> >>> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows. >>> >>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from >>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject >>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input >>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic >>>> property. >>> >>> Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or >>> syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant >>> "only", too. >>> >>>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure* >>> >>> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a >>> failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written. >>> >> >> The above that I formed myself has key details that >> are simply assumed away from the conventional way >> this is stated: >> >> In computability theory, the halting problem is >> the problem of determining, from a description >> of an arbitrary computer program and an input, >> whether the program will finish running, or >> continue to run forever. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >> >> Makes sure to not take into account that an input >> that calls its own decider specifies a different >> sequence of steps than this same input to a decider >> that it does not call. > > The input D does not "call its own decider". > > It incorporates an implementation of a particular decider algorithm, > appiles it on itself, and then behaves contrary to its output. > *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept state Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state *Keep repeating unless aborted* (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ Input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does call its own decider Ĥ.embedded_H >> You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not >> specify recursive simulation the same way that you >> can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5. > > It does! But (it has been shown with code, even, using > your own framework!) that a recursive simulation can consist > of a regenerating progression of /terminating/ simulations. > > It is possible that generation of new simulations never stops; > but the simulations themselves terminate. (It's also possible that they > don't terminate.) > -- 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 | 2025-11-18 13:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fhrio$1ibqp$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135928 |
On 17/11/2025 23:38, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails*
>
> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows.
>
>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>> property.
A turing machine has a machine state (which could include operating a
loom or gigafactory) and it is sequenced across time so a nonterminating
program always has a specific semantic property. It's a specific
semantic property that a universal decider is deciding on, that an
assumed machine clock keeps ticking, but non-universal deciders (unsafe
deciders and safe deciders that exist) may decide on syntactic
properties and be wrong sometimes. Olcott may discuss here properties of
the union of safe, unsafe, and universal deciders and of the programs
over which they're right or over which they're wrong.
Formally, is termination just that the sequence of programmed sequences
formed of simulations of increasing leading N cycles of the program has
an N over which all leading programmed sequences are identical (ie, the
sequence of leading sequences converges) and where I/O or other
nondeterministic steps don't exist (ie, are part of a machine
reconfiguration), or am I missing some nuance?
Do we take that a machine with rule {A,B => Write A, B} terminates there
or is nonterminating at that rule?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 02:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <20251117181648.261@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135922 |
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* You wouldn't recognize a subtle nuance if it blew off your right arm with 12 gauge. :) > *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* > *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails* > > Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from > their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject > state on the basis that this [finite string] input > specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic > property. Yep, and that's exactly what our diagonal case D is. A finite length program whose syntax and semantics specify halting or not. You're not showing a proof that D consists of anything else. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 11:41 -0800 |
| Subject | eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fftoc$111ej$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135873 |
On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. > >>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured professors don't >>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. > >>>>>> It is not a falsehood. > >>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for >>>>> this reason. > >>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf > >>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>> reply you made to my last post. > > >> You have to read it all the way through. > > I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. uhhh ... not that carefully > >> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >> they do not point out any error in my arguments >> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >> need to read my arguments carefully. > > That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner because u don't read things let me bullet point: - comp sci phd in 1974 - full prof in 1983 - chair in software engineering in 2001 - emeritus in 2012 till now - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in 1989 his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor of... the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro > out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though > mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large > amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like > yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting Theorem > is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer > science. > > One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of > fruitless discussions which happen here. > >> -- >> Copyright 2025 Olcott > >> My 28 year goal has been to make >> "true on the basis of meaning" computable. > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fftuu$139p3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135885 |
On 11/17/2025 1:41 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant >>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been >>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the >>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look >>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he >>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy. >> >>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened. Tenured >>>>>>>> professors don't >>>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field. >> >>>>>>> It is not a falsehood. >> >>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>> sacked for >>>>>> this reason. >> >>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >> >>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of anybody >>>> being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in the other >>>> reply you made to my last post. >> >> >>> You have to read it all the way through. >> >> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > > uhhh ... not that carefully > >> >>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>> need to read my arguments carefully. >> >> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > > bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner > > because u don't read things let me bullet point: > - comp sci phd in 1974 > - full prof in 1983 > - chair in software engineering in 2001 > - emeritus in 2012 till now > - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field > > ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in 1989 > his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor of... > > the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton > > if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro > Yeah for our side !!! >> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting Theorem >> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >> science. >> >> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >> fruitless discussions which happen here. >> >>> -- >>> Copyright 2025 Olcott >> >>> My 28 year goal has been to make >>> "true on the basis of meaning" computable. >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 20:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fg0t6$2fft$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #135885 |
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: [ .... ] >>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>> sacked for this reason. >>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>> anybody being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in >>>> the other reply you made to my last post. >>> You have to read it all the way through. >> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > uhhh ... not that carefully I've read Stoddart's paper through pretty thoroughly, and it's full of holes. I'm intending to reply to one of PO's posts with details. >>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>> need to read my arguments carefully. >> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner He may not be a crank when writing about computer science. But he's seemingly out of his depth with mathematics. > because u don't read things let me bullet point: > - comp sci phd in 1974 > - full prof in 1983 > - chair in software engineering in 2001 > - emeritus in 2012 till now > - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field > ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in 1989 > his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor of... I did. > the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton Who? What's that got to do with anything. > if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro No. I'm suggesting he's a mathematics crank, but capable in computer science. The concept of somebody being a crank in a restricted area, but competent in their own speciality just occurred to me now. >> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting Theorem >> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >> science. >> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >> fruitless discussions which happen here. > -- > a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve > basic semantic proofs like halting analysis > please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, > ~ nick -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 14:45 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fg1hj$14dco$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135888 |
On 11/17/2025 2:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>>> sacked for this reason. > >>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf > >>>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>>> anybody being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in >>>>> the other reply you made to my last post. > > >>>> You have to read it all the way through. > >>> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > >> uhhh ... not that carefully > > I've read Stoddart's paper through pretty thoroughly, and it's full of > holes. I'm intending to reply to one of PO's posts with details. > >>>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>>> need to read my arguments carefully. > >>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > >> bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner > > He may not be a crank when writing about computer science. But he's > seemingly out of his depth with mathematics. > >> because u don't read things let me bullet point: >> - comp sci phd in 1974 >> - full prof in 1983 >> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >> - emeritus in 2012 till now >> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field > >> ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in 1989 >> his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor of... > > I did. > >> the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton > > Who? What's that got to do with anything. > >> if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro > > No. I'm suggesting he's a mathematics crank, but capable in computer > science. The concept of somebody being a crank in a restricted area, but > competent in their own speciality just occurred to me now. > news://news.eternal-september.org/10ffrgd$12fds$1@dont-email.me On 11/17/2025 1:02 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:> > What is the reasoning that concludes that the > reasonings of Turing and of Goedel have a sound > basis and does /that/ reasoning also have a sound > basis? > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fg3qh$14raf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135888 |
On 11/17/25 12:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>>> sacked for this reason. > >>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf > >>>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>>> anybody being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in >>>>> the other reply you made to my last post. > > >>>> You have to read it all the way through. > >>> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. > >> uhhh ... not that carefully > > I've read Stoddart's paper through pretty thoroughly, and it's full of > holes. I'm intending to reply to one of PO's posts with details. > >>>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>>> need to read my arguments carefully. > >>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point > >> bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner > > He may not be a crank when writing about computer science. But he's > seemingly out of his depth with mathematics. > >> because u don't read things let me bullet point: >> - comp sci phd in 1974 >> - full prof in 1983 >> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >> - emeritus in 2012 till now >> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field > >> ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in 1989 >> his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor of... > > I did. > >> the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton > > Who? What's that got to do with anything. > >> if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro > > No. I'm suggesting he's a mathematics crank, but capable in computer > science. The concept of somebody being a crank in a restricted area, but > competent in their own speciality just occurred to me now. set theory isn't used to justify the halting problem, it's justified within comp sci using turing machines as the axiomatic base (read turing's paper, specifically §8) the halting problem, or more broadly semantic paradoxes (rice's theorem) is a comp sci problem, not a set theory problem if anything turing using the comp sci problem to justify the set theory result by godel, and that's why they are thought to be equivalent. eric is not cranking out of his league > >>> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >>> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >>> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >>> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting Theorem >>> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >>> science. > >>> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >>> fruitless discussions which happen here. -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 13:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: eric is not a crank |
| Message-ID | <10fg454$14raf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135893 |
On 11/17/25 1:24 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 12:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been >>>>>>>> sacked for this reason. >> >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf >> >>>>>> What's that got to do with anything? There is no indication of >>>>>> anybody being sacked in that article. Nor in the article cited in >>>>>> the other reply you made to my last post. >> >> >>>>> You have to read it all the way through. >> >>>> I have done now, more or less. Nobody got sacked. >> >>> uhhh ... not that carefully >> >> I've read Stoddart's paper through pretty thoroughly, and it's full of >> holes. I'm intending to reply to one of PO's posts with details. >> >>>>> What strikes me most about these reviews is that >>>>> they do not point out any error in my arguments >>>>> and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults, >>>>> that I am making a claim that is contrary to the >>>>> current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing >>>>> proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's >>>>> in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's >>>>> abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no >>>>> need to read my arguments carefully. >> >>>> That sounds like another crank. Some of the reviewers did indeed point >> >>> bruh eric is by no means a crank: https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner >> >> He may not be a crank when writing about computer science. But he's >> seemingly out of his depth with mathematics. >> >>> because u don't read things let me bullet point: >>> - comp sci phd in 1974 >>> - full prof in 1983 >>> - chair in software engineering in 2001 >>> - emeritus in 2012 till now >>> - this is all university of toronto too, big name in the field >> >>> ...you didn't even make it thru the 1st paragraph coherent where in 1989 >>> his paper was rejected by a paper that he was literally an editor of... >> >> I did. >> >>> the guy is actually personal friends with geoffrey hinton >> >> Who? What's that got to do with anything. >> >>> if he's a crank then we're all fucking cranks bro >> >> No. I'm suggesting he's a mathematics crank, but capable in computer >> science. The concept of somebody being a crank in a restricted area, but >> competent in their own speciality just occurred to me now. > > set theory isn't used to justify the halting problem, it's justified > within comp sci using turing machines as the axiomatic base (read > turing's paper, specifically §8) > > the halting problem, or more broadly semantic paradoxes (rice's theorem) > is a comp sci problem, not a set theory problem > > if anything turing using the comp sci problem to justify the set theory > result by godel, and that's why they are thought to be equivalent. > > eric is not cranking out of his league the fact someone of even a status like eric cannot start a proper academic conversation on this is problem my dude > >> >>>> out errors. Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though >>>> mathematics were a question of fashion. It's not. I would bet a large >>>> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like >>>> yourself. Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. The Halting >>>> Theorem >>>> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer >>>> science. >> >>>> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of >>>> fruitless discussions which happen here. > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web