Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #50238 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-11 13:07 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-05-13 12:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 85 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 13:07 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-11 20:11 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:23 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 21:02 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 18:31 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 12:43 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 18:43 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 12:45 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 18:47 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 12:51 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 19:00 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 13:06 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 19:13 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 21:12 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 15:18 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 23:58 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:28 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:40 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:32 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 21:48 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 13:38 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 20:56 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 19:09 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 18:50 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 18:46 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 18:45 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 19:41 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 01:17 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:29 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 20:52 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:10 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 21:29 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 23:02 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 23:54 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:21 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:24 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:42 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:35 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:25 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 21:41 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 12:05 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:01 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:06 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:24 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:11 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:22 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:26 -0700
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 21:44 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:27 -0700
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:22 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:48 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:04 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:06 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:07 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:09 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:20 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:04 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:20 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 19:03 -0600
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 21:21 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 22:37 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 23:46 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:57 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:09 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:18 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:09 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:03 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:11 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:18 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:22 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:28 +0100
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-14 11:45 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 04:28 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-14 15:55 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 08:53 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-15 12:05 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 16:11 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:15 -0500
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-14 11:26 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 21:03 -0400
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 16:02 +0300
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 12:21 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <WUCfK.539$cvmb.491@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #50519 |
On 5/13/22 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six >>>>>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six >>>>>>>>>>>>> month period. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, >>>>>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> >>>>>>>>>>>> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other >>>>>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as >>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the >>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting >>>>>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the >>>>>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is >>>>>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot >>>>>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him >>>>>>>>> that the liar paradox is simply untrue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some >>>>>>>>> rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer >>>>>>>>> science decider that requires all deciders to compute the >>>>>>>>> mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the >>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in >>>>>>>>> these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking >>>>>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is a naive thing to say. >>>>>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the >>>>>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way >>>>>>> that truth actually works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. >>>>> >>>>> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of >>>>> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions. >>>> >>>> Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions. >>>> >>> >>> I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how >>> symbolic logic diverges from this. >> >> IF you aren't talking about Formal Logic and the rules for it, then >> you are talking in the wrong place. Note, you don't get to change the >> rules. > > When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that > they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect. The rules of logic ARE the rules of logic. PERIOD. If you disagree with what the logic says, fine, you reject those fields of logic as useful. Others disagree. Most others will say that YOU are incorrect. > >> >> If you really want to try to turn the whole field of logic on its >> head, you really need to be working in the fields that deal with the >> core basics of how logic works. >> > > This issue is the philosophical foundation of logic is inconsistent. But it IS the foundation of logic. If you want to try to come up with something better, go ahead, work on it. > >> Comutation Theory and the Halting Problem is NOT where to try to >> change those things. The fact that you even think it is tends to be a >> pretty good sign that you don't really understand what you are talking >> about. >> >> My guess is that if you actually had an idea of that level, you needed >> to start decades ago in the right places for THAT sort of discussion. >> > > I started in 1997. The HP is the only concrete example where all of the > details of the error in the philosophical foundation of logic can be > shown in all of its complete detail as actually fully operational code. Then you don't understand your logic well enough. The Halting Problems is likely THOUSANDS of steps removed from the foundation assumptions of the Formal Logic of the system it is built on. > > Every other way of proving my point has gaps in reasoning that have been > hard-wired into the conventional definitions of terms of the art. I think it shows that there are gaps in YOUR understanding of the issue. Most of the stuff that you have tried to point out seems to be stuff that has been out there for most of a century, and the errors in it found. You want all truth to be provable, it has been shown that this can only hold in the simpler logic systems. by NECESSITY, more complicated logic operations expand the region of "Truth" faster than the region of "Provable", so we get stuff that can be true, but not proven, and incompleteness of the system. It turns out that most of the very useful logic systems have crossed that line, so have decided that the greater reasoning power is worth being incomplete. > > When I try to correct these errors people simply assume that I do not > correctly know the proper definition. Which you are proved that you don't know. > >> As it is, you claim to have very limited time, and have ruined any >> reputation that you might have hoped to have, so you are proably >> doomed to fail at establishing any sort of new class of logic based on >> your ideas. >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <t5mv57$8lc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50519 |
On 2022-05-13 18:20, olcott wrote: > When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that > they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect. But you haven't identified any rules of logic which are inconsistent. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 21:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <buDfK.783$JXmb.442@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #50528 |
On 5/13/22 9:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2022-05-13 18:20, olcott wrote: > >> When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that >> they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect. > > But you haven't identified any rules of logic which are inconsistent. > > André > > They are inconsistent with HIS idea that Truth must be provable, Which can't be Proved so isn't True in a system that wants to use it. It can only be an Axiom, but it has been proved inconsistent with most logic system that are complicated enough, so adding it distroys the logic system. This shows that it is HIS idea that is inconsistent and must be rejected for not being correct reasoning. Of course, that logc will just blow the circuit breakers in his head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 22:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <7bednR2hFMySueL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50528 |
On 5/13/2022 8:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2022-05-13 18:20, olcott wrote: > >> When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that >> they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect. > > But you haven't identified any rules of logic which are inconsistent. > > André I have not articulated this clearly enough yet. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 23:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50417 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>> >>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>> what's your opinion? >>> >>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? > > It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this > input actually specifies. But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its nonsense. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50484 |
On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>> >>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>>> what's your opinion? >>>> >>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >> >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >> input actually specifies. > > But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its > nonsense. > It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs) at all. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <3zBfK.8353$Yfl6.5933@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #50486 |
On 5/13/22 6:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, >>>>>> but >>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>> >>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>> >>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>> input actually specifies. >> >> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >> nonsense. >> > > It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status > for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct > simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. > > Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must > compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly > specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs) > at all. > STILL proving you don't know what you are talking about. You have proved no such thing, since H does not do a CORRECT simulation (which will never abort, since machines don't just stop in the middle) You also prove you still don't understand what a computation is. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <HbadncN5hvWyeuP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50496 |
On 5/13/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 6:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows >>>>>>> why, but >>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every >>>>>> single >>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>> >>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>> input actually specifies. >>> >>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >>> nonsense. >>> >> >> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >> >> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it >> must compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs >> explicitly specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of >> its inputs) at all. >> > > STILL proving you don't know what you are talking about. > > You have proved no such thing, since H does not do a CORRECT simulation > (which will never abort, since machines don't just stop in the middle) It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running. > > You also prove you still don't understand what a computation is. > > FAIL. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <2rCfK.150$6XNb.66@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #50499 |
On 5/13/22 7:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 6:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the >>>>>>>>> philosophical >>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows >>>>>>>> why, but >>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every >>>>>>> single >>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>> >>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>> input actually specifies. >>>> >>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>> >>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >>> >>> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it >>> must compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs >>> explicitly specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function >>> of its inputs) at all. >>> >> >> STILL proving you don't know what you are talking about. >> >> You have proved no such thing, since H does not do a CORRECT >> simulation (which will never abort, since machines don't just stop in >> the middle) > > > It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status > for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct > simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H > has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running. No, it has been proven that H can't possibly simulate the input to a final state, so you have proved that H can't prove its input Halts. You haven't proved that it doesn't halt, at least not by the REAL definition of Halting (which you aren't allowed to change). H has NOT proven that the input won't halt, only that H can't prove that the input halts. H has used UNSOUND logic to conclude that the input doesn't halt, as it assumes that the copy of H it is simulating won't abort its simulation of its input, when this is NOT true (at least if H is a computation). Thus H HASN'T actually proved the input is non-halting and thus makes an error and gets the wrong answer. > > >> >> You also prove you still don't understand what a computation is. >> >> FAIL. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 01:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50486 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>> >>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>> >>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>> input actually specifies. >> >> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >> nonsense. > > It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt > status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven > correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <f8ednb52fY4BbuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50510 |
On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>> >>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>> input actually specifies. >>> >>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >>> nonsense. >> >> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. > > But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world > wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published. > That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running. It has been empirically proven that H1(P,P)==1 is the correct halt status for the input to H1(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H1(P,P) that H1 derives halts. Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs) at all. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 01:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <875ym9ufuf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50516 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>> >>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>> input actually specifies. >>>> >>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >>>> nonsense. >>> >>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >> >> But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world >> wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published. > > That the definition of the halting problem criteria There's only one -- a computation either halts or it does not halt, and the is no ambiguity about what that means. (It can be made precise, but only using a formal model of computation and you don't know any of those.) The function call P(P) unambiguously halts. Your H can not tell us this fact. By no longer talking about actual halting, you are, in effect, agreeing that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) == true if and only if X(Y) halts and false otherwise. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <kpWdnUcgUMSwa-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50518 |
On 5/13/2022 7:18 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>> >>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>>> input actually specifies. >>>>> >>>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >>>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >>> >>> But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world >>> wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published. >> >> That the definition of the halting problem criteria > > There's only one -- a computation either halts or it does not halt, and > the is no ambiguity about what that means. (It can be made precise, but > only using a formal model of computation and you don't know any of > those.) > > The function call P(P) unambiguously halts. Your H can not tell us this > fact. By no longer talking about actual halting, you are, in effect, > agreeing that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) == true if and only if > X(Y) halts and false otherwise. > Learned-by-rote by-the-book people can't get past the fact that the book really cannot be relied upon as infallible because it is their only basis. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 01:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <87tu9tt0tl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50521 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 7:18 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar >>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical >>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but >>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single >>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before >>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the >>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic. >>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>>>> input actually specifies. >>>>>> >>>>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its >>>>>> nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >>>> >>>> But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world >>>> wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published. >>> >>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria >> There's only one -- a computation either halts or it does not halt, and >> the is no ambiguity about what that means. (It can be made precise, but >> only using a formal model of computation and you don't know any of >> those.) >> The function call P(P) unambiguously halts. Your H can not tell us this >> fact. By no longer talking about actual halting, you are, in effect, >> agreeing that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) == true if and only if >> X(Y) halts and false otherwise. > > Learned-by-rote by-the-book people can't get past the fact that the > book really cannot be relied upon as infallible because it is their > only basis. Not-learned-by-any-method people spout nonsense on Usenet all the time. They don't get papers published. They don't contribute the sum total of human knowledge. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 11:45 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <t5nq7j$7sn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50486 |
On 2022-05-13 22:57:47 +0000, olcott said: > It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt > status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven > correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. There is a category error in that statement. Mathematical truths do not refer to empirical facts so they cannot be empirically proven. Whether H(P,P) == 0 is true or false is a mathematical question so it cannot be determined empirically. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 04:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <W7ednaE88Liu6-L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50543 |
On 5/14/2022 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-05-13 22:57:47 +0000, olcott said: > >> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. > > There is a category error in that statement. Mathematical truths do not > refer to empirical facts so they cannot be empirically proven. Whether > H(P,P) == 0 is true or false is a mathematical question so it cannot be > determined empirically. > > Mikko > In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 15:55 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <t5o8se$ndn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50546 |
On 2022-05-14 09:28:20 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/14/2022 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2022-05-13 22:57:47 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >> >> There is a category error in that statement. Mathematical truths do not >> refer to empirical facts so they cannot be empirically proven. Whether >> H(P,P) == 0 is true or false is a mathematical question so it cannot be >> determined empirically. >> >> Mikko >> > > In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard > correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or > equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or > formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between > computer programs and mathematical proofs. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence That is a mathematical equivalence between mathematical structures. Nothing empirical there. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 08:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <Z9-dnbJQ54nEKeL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50549 |
On 5/14/2022 7:55 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-05-14 09:28:20 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/14/2022 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2022-05-13 22:57:47 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically >>>> proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >>> >>> There is a category error in that statement. Mathematical truths do not >>> refer to empirical facts so they cannot be empirically proven. Whether >>> H(P,P) == 0 is true or false is a mathematical question so it cannot be >>> determined empirically. >>> >>> Mikko >>> >> >> In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard >> correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or >> equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or >> formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between >> computer programs and mathematical proofs. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence > > That is a mathematical equivalence between mathematical structures. > Nothing empirical there. > > Mikko > proofs-as-programs and programs do run, thus the mapping between the math and empirical validation of this math. C is a formal language of a formal system. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-15 12:05 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <t5qfor$oek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50553 |
On 2022-05-14 13:53:29 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/14/2022 7:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2022-05-14 09:28:20 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/14/2022 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2022-05-13 22:57:47 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven >>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. >>>> >>>> There is a category error in that statement. Mathematical truths do not >>>> refer to empirical facts so they cannot be empirically proven. Whether >>>> H(P,P) == 0 is true or false is a mathematical question so it cannot be >>>> determined empirically. >>>> >>>> Mikko >>>> >>> >>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard >>> correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or >>> equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or >>> formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between >>> computer programs and mathematical proofs. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >> >> That is a mathematical equivalence between mathematical structures. >> Nothing empirical there. >> >> Mikko >> > > proofs-as-programs and programs do run, thus the mapping between the > math and empirical validation of this math. Even when the same text can be interpreted as a proof or as a program, those interpretaions involve different semantics. Therefore the execution does not validate anything beyond the syntax. > C is a formal language of a formal system. No, it is not. The definition C leaves much unspecified and allows unspecified extensions. Conseqently, one confoming C implementation may accept a program that another conforming implementation rejects, and the same conforming C program may produce different results when run in tow different cocforming implementations. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:11 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] |
| Message-ID | <t5lleh$vp3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50340 |
On 2022-05-13 01:25:37 +0000, olcott said: > Taking a form such as this: Provide a natural number N such that N > 7 > and N < 3, the answer must be a natural number. Or a proof that no such natural number exists. > When the definition of the halting problem directly contradicts the > definition of a computer science decider, then the definition of the > halting problem is proven to be incorrect. The definition of the halting problem cannot contradict the definition of decider. It can only contradict another definition of halting problem. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web