Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #130318 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-25 08:56 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-09-27 12:58 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 254 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 08:56 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 16:21 +0200
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 09:27 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:19 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 13:18 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-27 00:23 +0200
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-27 15:14 +0200
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 17:31 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 11:37 -0500
Re: Peter Olcott's character [ Was: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem] Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-27 20:37 +0000
Re: Peter Olcott's character [ Was: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 16:48 -0500
Re: Peter Olcott's character [ Was: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 14:05 -0500
Re: Peter Olcott's character Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-27 19:42 +0000
Who is telling the truth here? Mackenzie's character olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 14:58 -0500
Re: Peter Olcott's character [ Was: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 15:19 -0500
Re: Peter Olcott's character [ Was: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem] Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 20:12 +0000
Re: Peter Olcott's character [ Was: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 21:49 +0100
Peter Olcott's character [ Was: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-27 19:03 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 10:14 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-09-27 10:57 -0600
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 18:57 +0800
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-09-28 10:59 -0600
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-09-27 16:44 +0200
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 06:45 +0800
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 22:43 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-09-27 00:46 -0600
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 06:32 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 12:48 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 20:31 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 20:25 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 13:00 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 20:39 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 16:57 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-28 19:05 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 18:21 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 02:18 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 12:17 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 22:33 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 21:36 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 15:30 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 22:09 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 21:27 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 19:45 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 15:05 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 20:49 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 18:40 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-28 03:02 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 21:20 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-28 03:42 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 22:22 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-28 18:14 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- Famous Buddhist olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 20:22 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- Famous Buddhist Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 07:38 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 04:27 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 22:31 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 23:34 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 04:43 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 04:38 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 09:39 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 16:12 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 10:24 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 17:20 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 11:29 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 17:36 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 11:41 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 18:43 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 12:49 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-28 19:01 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 13:15 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 00:02 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-28 18:01 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 13:18 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 00:06 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 19:31 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 01:37 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 20:55 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 02:44 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 21:56 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 05:31 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 10:29 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 17:12 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 22:32 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 05:10 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 07:38 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-28 18:54 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 19:46 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-28 18:25 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 20:13 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 21:18 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-28 18:30 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 20:05 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 21:16 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 01:41 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 21:09 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 02:50 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 21:59 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 23:02 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 04:31 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 09:30 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 15:39 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 10:40 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 18:27 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 12:50 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 18:36 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 14:08 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-29 21:03 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 16:39 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-01 08:49 +0000
I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- ALL DETAILS PROVIDED olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 08:10 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- ALL DETAILS PROVIDED dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 09:19 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 21:45 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 21:34 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 16:56 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 22:17 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 17:56 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-30 00:31 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 20:25 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-30 03:42 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 23:12 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 09:12 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-30 16:38 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 12:02 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-30 21:22 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 20:24 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-01 03:00 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 21:03 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-01 04:04 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 22:09 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-01 04:20 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 22:22 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-01 05:09 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-02 07:54 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-30 10:26 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 12:34 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 09:30 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 07:34 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-30 13:00 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 09:29 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-30 15:15 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 10:39 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-30 16:14 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 11:55 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-30 17:30 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 12:36 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-02 13:02 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-02 10:36 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-02 16:41 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-02 11:56 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-02 12:43 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 17:21 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 12:14 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 18:48 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 13:36 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 19:40 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-30 18:52 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-30 21:03 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 20:01 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 14:13 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-30 20:16 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-01 08:44 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 07:42 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-01 13:54 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 19:37 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 14:59 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 22:00 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 17:48 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-30 00:43 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 00:32 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 18:39 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 01:36 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 20:03 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 02:21 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 20:29 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 02:42 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 20:44 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 08:54 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 07:56 -0500
Expanding on Rice's Theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 21:35 -0500
Re: Expanding on Rice's Theorem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 09:10 +0100
Re: Expanding on Rice's Theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 09:36 -0500
Re: Expanding on Rice's Theorem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-30 16:45 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 14:53 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 11:36 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-29 21:10 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 16:43 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 05:28 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood ---typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 21:23 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood ---typo "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 19:42 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood ---typo "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 19:59 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood ---typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 22:01 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood ---typo "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 20:03 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-29 09:48 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 07:34 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 14:02 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-29 13:51 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 09:21 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 15:35 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 10:36 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 18:20 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 12:26 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-29 15:06 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 10:46 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- why I am not understood Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-29 18:30 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-28 18:21 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-28 18:09 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem --- joes see this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 20:24 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 16:48 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 13:33 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-28 12:23 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 08:32 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-28 13:47 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 08:58 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-28 14:33 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 09:44 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-28 18:05 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 13:21 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 16:53 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 12:29 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 23:18 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 17:46 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 10:25 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-28 20:19 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 16:09 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 22:15 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 19:28 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-26 14:00 -0600
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-15 10:21 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 15:55 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 17:22 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-27 09:00 -0400
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 06:35 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 19:49 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-09-27 12:59 +0200
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 10:47 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 20:35 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 12:52 +1000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 11:27 +0800
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 16:20 +0800
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 11:27 +0800
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 14:49 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 19:01 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 13:10 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 10:56 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 20:32 +0200
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 13:56 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 14:51 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 19:34 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 18:05 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 11:22 -0500
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 17:44 +0200
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:14 +0100
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-25 16:01 +0000
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 11:06 -0700
Re: I corrected the very subtle error in the halting problem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-27 12:58 +0300
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 18:57 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <c1642358c46424667a6ee02ad37addad58acc275.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #130616 |
On Sat, 2025-09-27 at 10:57 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 9/27/2025 7:14 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> > On 27.09.2025 08:46, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> > > On 9/26/2025 4:23 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ''In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of
> > > > Russell's
> > > > paradox as follows:
> > > > [...]
> > > > (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.333)"
> > > I've read the Tractatus and found it a lot of fun and stimulating of
> > > thought. I'm composing this note, not to argue with philosophy;
> >
> > Neither do I (that would certainly lead to far). My intention here
> > is just to direct to the OP's original statement which was linking
> > logic and semantics, and had been speaking of "mistakes of logic":
> > "The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain
> > semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions."
> > Wittgenstein in his Tractatus (as I understood it) separated well
> > the factors [language-]semantics, [bool] logic, and [mathematical]
> > "technical" aspects, including [real languages'] syntax (and [as
> > in programming languages] their [operational/technical] semantics).
>
> My most interesting takeaway from T for me was the discussion that
> posited that two (different?) entities that having precisely the same
> properties did not entail that the entities were identical, i.e., "=" in
> the logical sense of merely having two names. The possibility was that
> the model was not broad enough to distinguish them. This insight should
> lead to a discussion of semantic sufficiency, big world assumptions and
> problems, and the obvious conclusion that logic is a formal, not
> all-informative system.
No (currently) formal language is more expressive (and more real) than
procedural language, e.g. C/C++ (precisely Turing Machine, so far).
The idea can be demonstrated:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/RealNumber2-en.txt/download
---- Snippet (about real number and infinity)
...
Axiom 2: An object (e.g., number, form) and its (operational) properties exist
simultaneously through definition.
'='::= a=b iff a-b=0
The meaning of the equality sign '=' can sometimes be ambiguous. This
definition is intended only as a reference when its meaning is in doubt or
undefined. According to Axiom 2, a number and its +/- operation must be
defined simultaneously in order to use this definition to determine "equality".
-----
> > That's why I had mentioned the necessary context for the full view!
> > (Some can be found around the above quoted proposition, some later
> > in his opus. But for a full understanding it's necessary to read
> > the whole text from the start.)
> >
> > (My mistake was to quote the single paragraph from Wikipedia that
> > is covering just a specific aspect, and certainly insufficiently;
> > the OP's link misguided me to think that Russel's view would have
> > been the source of the OP's misconception. But the problem may lie
> > deeper; in not separating sensibly the involved categories. IMO.)
> >
> > > rather
> > > to mention the realization of such such a possibility in an actual
> > > programming language. [...]
> >
> > Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 10:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10bbpi1$2fruc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130745 |
On 9/28/2025 4:57 AM, wij wrote: > On Sat, 2025-09-27 at 10:57 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote: >> On 9/27/2025 7:14 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 27.09.2025 08:46, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>> On 9/26/2025 4:23 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ''In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of >>>>> Russell's >>>>> paradox as follows: >>>>> [...] >>>>> (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.333)" >>>> I've read the Tractatus and found it a lot of fun and stimulating of >>>> thought. I'm composing this note, not to argue with philosophy; >>> >>> Neither do I (that would certainly lead to far). My intention here >>> is just to direct to the OP's original statement which was linking >>> logic and semantics, and had been speaking of "mistakes of logic": >>> "The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain >>> semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions." >>> Wittgenstein in his Tractatus (as I understood it) separated well >>> the factors [language-]semantics, [bool] logic, and [mathematical] >>> "technical" aspects, including [real languages'] syntax (and [as >>> in programming languages] their [operational/technical] semantics). >> >> My most interesting takeaway from T for me was the discussion that >> posited that two (different?) entities that having precisely the same >> properties did not entail that the entities were identical, i.e., "=" in >> the logical sense of merely having two names. The possibility was that >> the model was not broad enough to distinguish them. This insight should >> lead to a discussion of semantic sufficiency, big world assumptions and >> problems, and the obvious conclusion that logic is a formal, not >> all-informative system. > > No (currently) formal language is more expressive (and more real) than > procedural language, e.g. C/C++ (precisely Turing Machine, so far). > > The idea can be demonstrated: > https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/RealNumber2-en.txt/download > ---- Snippet (about real number and infinity) > ... > Axiom 2: An object (e.g., number, form) and its (operational) properties exist > simultaneously through definition. > > '='::= a=b iff a-b=0 > The meaning of the equality sign '=' can sometimes be ambiguous. This > definition is intended only as a reference when its meaning is in doubt or > undefined. According to Axiom 2, a number and its +/- operation must be > defined simultaneously in order to use this definition to determine "equality". Note above, that I said `"=" in the logical sense'. I understand that an axiom set might define an equal which is domain specific. I was talking about the equality used in determining unification. > ----- > >>> That's why I had mentioned the necessary context for the full view! >>> (Some can be found around the above quoted proposition, some later >>> in his opus. But for a full understanding it's necessary to read >>> the whole text from the start.) >>> >>> (My mistake was to quote the single paragraph from Wikipedia that >>> is covering just a specific aspect, and certainly insufficiently; >>> the OP's link misguided me to think that Russel's view would have >>> been the source of the OP's misconception. But the problem may lie >>> deeper; in not separating sensibly the involved categories. IMO.) >>> >>>> rather >>>> to mention the realization of such such a possibility in an actual >>>> programming language. [...] >>> >>> Yes. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 16:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10b8t8u$1glk9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130526 |
[Follow-up set to comp.theory.] On 27/09/2025 15:14, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > the OP's link misguided me to think that Russel's view would have > been the source of the OP's misconception. But the problem may lie > deeper; in not separating sensibly the involved categories. IMO. Olcott is a liar and a troll, not confused: what he systematically won't to say is that he is a *logicist*, meaning that in his realm truth reduces to provability, period. So, his attempts at solving the halting problem rather boil down to finding a language in which all functions are guaranteed to terminate. And the irony of the gigantic amount of induced nonsense and spam is that such languages even exist (e.g. Rocq), but of course are *not* Turing complete (for what that is worth, which isn't much). So, our "logicist", together with the whole circus that over two+ decades has been gathering around him and providing the true bulk of a yet-another shit flooding, is not even solving the right problem... *Plonk* -Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 06:45 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0ba69df7ee0cd0778daca0f6c242d6e0cd972d8.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #130516 |
On Sat, 2025-09-27 at 00:23 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 26.09.2025 22:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > [...] > > > > The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain > > > semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions. > > When I read that I was tempted to suggest you reading Wittgenstein. > Concerning "logic" (and any "mistakes" you see) I'm not sure what > you understand when reading Wittgenstein but it may be worth a try! > > > > That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion > > BTW; with this link that you provided you can find your way through > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox > > even to one of the respective quotes from Wittgenstein's "Tractatus": > > ''In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of Russell's > paradox as follows: > > "The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the > sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, > and it cannot contain itself. For let us suppose that the function > F(fx) could be its own argument: in that case there would be a > proposition F(F(fx)), in which the outer function F and the inner > function F must have different meanings, since the inner one has the > form O(fx) and the outer one has the form Y(O(fx)). Only the letter > 'F' is common to the two functions, but the letter by itself signifies > nothing. This immediately becomes clear if instead of F(Fu) we write > (do) : F(Ou) . Ou = Fu. That disposes of Russell's paradox. > (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.333)" > '' Don't make sense to me. 1. recursive function is useful and popular 2. if the 'f' or 'F' means f:N->N, f(f(f(f(n)...))) is well defined. > (Getting more context of the "Tractatus" might be advisable, though. > And worth reading, IMO.) > > Janis > > PS (@Kaz): Sorry to have hijacked your reply, but I've configured my > newsreader to not anymore see these pathological repetitions of the > OP's posts. - Although it's (a bit) pity since the junction towards > the topic of "logic and semantics" appears more appealing than what > we've suffered from before. > > > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 22:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250926153153.407@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #130516 |
On 2025-09-26, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTW; with this link that you provided you can find your way through
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>
> even to one of the respective quotes from Wittgenstein's "Tractatus":
>
> ''In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of Russell's
> paradox as follows:
>
> "The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the
> sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument,
> and it cannot contain itself.
Wittgenstein was trying to use type to show that a function taking itself
as an argument is not well-typed and thus not well-formed.
However a function F can take as an argument another function G,
such that the definition of F relies on calling G.
For instance, if F takes a "() -> Bool" function and returns Bool, then
G can look like:
G() { return F(G) }
G can not only be passed to G, but G itself can perpetrate that
in its definition: pass itself to F.
We also know from C programming that if we have a self-referential
type definition facility we can do:
struct fn_wrap {
bool (*fn)(struct fn_wrap *pfn);
};
Then by through this type (essentially givin rise to a monad), we can
effectively achieve passing a function to itself.
bool F(struct fn_wrap *pfn)
{
...
}
struct fn_wrap fn = { F };
F(&fn);
Wittgenstein didn't think of wrapping.
However Gödel, while not having such an amazing tool of the intellect as
C declarations, did do so: he discovrered encoding as a way of smuggling
self-reference against type barriers. A formula of number theory could
be encoded into a number.
The same thing provides us with another example. If the function F has
an integer argument, and if we can find a way to encode functions into
integers, then that's another way F can be passed into F.
--
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 | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 00:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10b817f$1hijp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130516 |
On 9/26/2025 4:23 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 26.09.2025 22:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
<SNIP>> ''In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of
Russell's
> paradox as follows:
>
> "The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the
> sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument,
> and it cannot contain itself. For let us suppose that the function
> F(fx) could be its own argument: in that case there would be a
> proposition F(F(fx)), in which the outer function F and the inner
> function F must have different meanings, since the inner one has the
> form O(fx) and the outer one has the form Y(O(fx)). Only the letter
> 'F' is common to the two functions, but the letter by itself signifies
> nothing. This immediately becomes clear if instead of F(Fu) we write
> (do) : F(Ou) . Ou = Fu. That disposes of Russell's paradox.
> (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.333)"
I've read the Tractatus and found it a lot of fun and stimulating of
thought. I'm composing this note, not to argue with philosophy; rather
to mention the realization of such such a possibility in an actual
programming language. For more lengthy discussion, consult the document
at
https://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/lisp2_family/#CRISP_for_IBM370_at_SDC_
where a language manual for a strongly typed member of the LISP family,
called CRISP, is delineated.
CRISP allowed the name of all globally defined types as well as function
names to be used as types and these names could be defined recursively.
For example, if LIST were define as CONS(ANY, LIST) with the
understanding that NIL was in every type, the normal LISP LIST would be
a strong typed type. By the way, I'm not using the exact CRISP syntax
here - it's been about 50 years since Doug Pintar and I hacked this up
to support speech understanding research.
Consider a case of a procedure that, when invoked, caused a side effect
and returned a function that should be called to do the next side effect
step. A function declaration would resemble
FUNCTION foo (args...) -> foo
or a function that receives an argument functional that is similar type
to itself and expects to use that function to cooperate in interleaving
iterations with access to a closed frame to track when to terminate the
call chain. It's declaration would resemble
FUNCTION FOO (foo args...) -> whatever
To add to the spice, program pieces could be incrementally compiled and
type definitions modified while maintaining execution integrity while
debugging. Most of the "intellectual" contribution to all of this was
the determination of a subtype predicate. As an exercise, I propose that
you assume that fun1 and fun2 are functional types and you have to determine
SUBTYPE(fun1, fun2)
where the semantics are that the above is true if and only if a function
of type fun1 can (based on type safety considerations) be used anywhere
a function of type fun2 is expected.
PS I do not follow comp.lang.c so I will not see any followups posted to
only that group.
--
Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 06:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10b7ssu$1g9pn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130516 |
On 26/09/2025 23:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote: <snip> > ''In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of Russell's > paradox as follows: > > "The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the > sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, > and it cannot contain itself. If he can spare a minute, tell him to look up pointers. It's all in K&R. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10b9f1m$1tpeq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130420 |
On 9/27/25 12:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/27/2025 1:32 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 26.09.2025 um 17:56 schrieb olcott: >>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me. >>> >>> Are they also crazy ? >>> >>>> >>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf >>>> >>>> https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/ >>>> stoddart.pdf >>>> >>> >> >> That is the first thing that would occur to the >> herd mentality mind. They don't agree with the >> herd so they must be wrong: *Read their papers* > > Or, how about: YOU read their papers, but this time with the following > mindset: > > - be humble and ready to spot the flaws in your own thinking; > > - paying attention to to parts of the paper that /don't/ validate your thinking; > > - avoid latching on to phrases, taken out of context, which rhetorically > resonate with your ideas and appear to validate. > last i checked hehner's resolution invovles just barring machines from deciding upon themselves. kinda like turing's oracles. -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis. please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250927131745.805@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #130519 |
On 2025-09-27, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > last i checked hehner's resolution invovles just barring machines from > deciding upon themselves. kinda like turing's oracles. But that invokes the difficulty of deciding whether a machine is "self" or not, which is incomputable. Suppose that to "bar" a machine is simply to excuse it from giving a correct answer. The machine can answer a case involving itself if it wants, but the answer isn't required to be correct. Firstly, that destroys the notation of total halting. The set of machines for which correct answers are to be expected is now "subjective" depending on which machines are calculating the answers. Secondly, when we ask some machine H to decide another P, we cannot be confident that it is right! If the decision involved the machine analyzing itself, it is not required to be correct. How do we know That leaves a decision /for us/! We have to decide "does the case H(P) involve self-reference?" If it does, then we can't trust the answer; we must search for another decider. Otherwise we can trust the answer. But that decision is as difficult as halting. -- 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 | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 20:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10b6pb1$187m5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130420 |
On 26/09/2025 19:10, olcott wrote: > On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 26/09/2025 18:17, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me. >>>> >>>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a >>>> convincing argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp >>>> Sci PhDs who've studied the Halting Problem (for the 10 >>>> minutes it takes to drink a cup of coffee while they run the >>>> proof through their minds) and who have no problem with it >>>> whatsoever. >>>> >>> >>> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say >>> without looking at a single word because majority >>> consensus have never been shown to be less than >>> totally infallible. >> >> That isn't what I said. I said that for every PhD you can >> appeal to who doesn't understand the proof, there will be >> thousands who do understand the proof. >> > > By showing that two PhD computer scientists agree > with my position makes it unreasonably implausible > that I am a mere crackpot. No, what makes it reasonably plausible that you're a crackpot is that you've spent twenty years trying to answer a question you believe to be incorrect, meaningless, and nonsensical, and you make asinine arguments here with every indication of actually believing them. You make grand claims for yourself but don't back them up with intelligent discussion of the points made agaibst you, and you sneer at what you perceive as the dishonesty and incompetence of your correspondents. You've got crank written through you like a stick of Brighton Rock. >>> The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice >>> between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do >>> so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.” >> >> We don't even have to do that, because there is no need to >> change our minds and the proof is already written. >> > > In other words because you are sure that I must > be wrong there is no need to pay close attention > to what I say. Close attention must be earned. You might get it out of sheer curiosity to start with, but when you write an endless stream of drivel you quickly lose it, and it's hard to regain. > *The halting problem proof question is this* No, it isn't. The halting problem proof question is this: can a universal halting decider exist? The halting problem proof answer is this: no. <more drivel snipped> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87frc9x9u8.fsf@example.invalid> |
| In reply to | #130522 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 26/09/2025 19:10, olcott wrote:
[SNIP]
Please watch the crossposts. (No need to reply to this.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 20:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250927133142.772@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #130420 |
On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > Two PhD computer science professors share the > same view that I have had since 2004, thus it > is unreasonably implausible that I am a mere > crank. If their work, properly understood under the kindest interpretation that is most favorable to that work, agrees with you, then it is beyond a doubt that they are /they/ are absolute cranks. > Appeal to expert opinion is not an error in > inductive inference. Appeal to relevant expertise is indeed not a fallacy. However, when you appeal to relevant expertise, you are thereby disrobing yourself of the responsibility for your argumentation. The expert may be wrong, but you're just the messenger. You have effectivrely handed off your interlocutors to go argue with your chosen expert. Is this what you want? Should everyone here pick up those papers you have cited and go argue with those professors? -- 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 | 2025-09-27 16:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b9mk6$1vp80$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130531 |
On 9/27/2025 3:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> Two PhD computer science professors share the >> same view that I have had since 2004, thus it >> is unreasonably implausible that I am a mere >> crank. > > If their work, properly understood under the kindest interpretation > that is most favorable to that work, agrees with you, then it is beyond > a doubt that they are /they/ are absolute cranks. > It is clear from all of professor Hehner's many papers and he said in a direct quote that he believes there is something wrong with the halting problem. That also correctly sums up professor Stoddart's paper. >> Appeal to expert opinion is not an error in >> inductive inference. > > Appeal to relevant expertise is indeed not a fallacy. > > However, when you appeal to relevant expertise, you are thereby > disrobing yourself of the responsibility for your argumentation. > It makes the assessment that I am a mere crank unreasonably implausible. > The expert may be wrong, but you're just the messenger. > > You have effectivrely handed off your interlocutors to go argue with > your chosen expert. > Not at all. I came up with much of this same material independently on my own. I came up with their is something wrong with the halting problem long before Hehner or Stoddart ever published any papers. Professor Hehner said his first work was 1986. Mine is about 1998. > Is this what you want? Should everyone here pick up those papers > you have cited and go argue with those professors? > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 19:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250928120305.673@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #130706 |
On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/27/2025 3:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Two PhD computer science professors share the >>> same view that I have had since 2004, thus it >>> is unreasonably implausible that I am a mere >>> crank. >> >> If their work, properly understood under the kindest interpretation >> that is most favorable to that work, agrees with you, then it is beyond >> a doubt that they are /they/ are absolute cranks. >> > > It is clear from all of professor Hehner's many > papers and he said in a direct quote that he believes > there is something wrong with the halting problem. But has Hehner written some program around an x86 simulator to try to prove his point, and then not understand the limitations of what the traces produced by his own program are and are not saying? Does Hehner believe kookery like that when a simulation of a machine is abandoned, it is "totally killed" and we may regard it as non-terminating? If not, he might just be a Level I crank, not Level III. -- 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 | 2025-09-27 18:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b9ri5$213pf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130531 |
On 9/27/2025 3:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> Two PhD computer science professors share the >> same view that I have had since 2004, thus it >> is unreasonably implausible that I am a mere >> crank. > > If their work, properly understood under the kindest interpretation > that is most favorable to that work, agrees with you, then it is beyond > a doubt that they are /they/ are absolute cranks. > Yes that is exactly the herd mentality. The must be wrong because they do not agree with the conventional ideas. Einstein faced this exact same thing. https://www.amazon.com/One-Hundred-Authors-Against-Einstein/dp/B09PHH7KC8 >> Appeal to expert opinion is not an error in >> inductive inference. > > Appeal to relevant expertise is indeed not a fallacy. > > However, when you appeal to relevant expertise, you are thereby > disrobing yourself of the responsibility for your argumentation. > > The expert may be wrong, but you're just the messenger. > > You have effectivrely handed off your interlocutors to go argue with > your chosen expert. > > Is this what you want? Should everyone here pick up those papers > you have cited and go argue with those professors? > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 02:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b833v$1hub1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130420 |
On 9/26/2025 5:15 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/26/2025 3:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> *The conventional halting problem question is this* >>>> Does there exist a single halt decider that >>>> can correctly report the halt status of the >>>> behavior of a directly executed machine on >>>> the basis of this machine's machine description. >>>> >>>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this* >>>> What correct halt status value can be returned >>>> when the input to a halt decider actually does >>>> the opposite of whatever value is returned? >>>> >>>> These above conventional views are proven. >>> >>> Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements. >>> And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own >>> formulations and then declare them to be conventional. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Any statement or question that is semantically >> equivalent to another can be replaced by this >> other expression of language while retaining >> the same essential meaning. > > Lofty words there, Aristotle! > > Too bad HHH(DD) has a different meaning depending on where it is placed > and who is evaluating it, plus whatever you need it to mean for whatever > you are saying. > *The conventional halting problem proof question is this* For a halt decider H what correct halt status can be returned for an input D that does the opposite of whatever value is returned? This is the actual diagonal proof question making it immediately obvious that correct answers are logically impossible. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 12:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b6hqn$164mh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130420 |
On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote: > > <snip> > >> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me. > > That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing > argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied > the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of > coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no > problem with it whatsoever. > And of course you can dismiss whatever they say without looking at a single word because majority consensus have never been shown to be less than totally infallible. The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.” Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? https://jamesclear.com/why-facts-dont-change-minds -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 22:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10b70qf$1a0s2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130537 |
[Ridiculous cross-posting removed]] On 26/09/2025 22:09, olcott wrote: <snip> > Any statement or question that is semantically > equivalent to another can be replaced by this > other expression of language while retaining > the same essential meaning. This is precisely why DD's HHH(DD) call can safely be replaced with #define HHH 0 -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 21:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10b9hsj$1u6t0$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130539 |
On 27/09/2025 19:33, olcott wrote: > Trying to get away with saying that infinite loops > are halting computations. And there's you trying to get away with saying that halting computations are infinite loops. DD halts, whatever you claim to think. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 15:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b9hh2$1ucru$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130539 |
On 9/27/2025 3:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/09/2025 18:29, olcott wrote: >> Liars ultimately must disagree with verified facts. > > You do know DD halts, right? > Unless and until you fully understand the semantic properties of finite strings you will remain clueless on this. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web