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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b8vkp$1pcqc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130642 |
On 9/26/2025 5:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 26/09/2025 22:53, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/26/2025 4:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> [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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> int factorial(int n)
>> {
>> if (n >= 1)
>> return n*factorial(n-1);
>> else
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> int factorial_caller()
>> {
>> factorial(5);
>> }
>>
>> No Dumbo
>
> What are you, six?
>
>> because then HHH gets the wrong
>> answer to that.
>
> I said DD's HHH(DD) call, not HHH(other stuff that nobody gives a hoot
> about).
>
Its a stupid idea that gets the wrong answer.
The execution trace of DD emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language proves all of
the details of how and why I am correct.
That you won't bother to look at this or are too
dumb to understand it *IS NOT MY MISTAKE*
The execution trace of DD emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the c language ALSO proves all
of the details of how and why I am correct.
HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) then
HHH simulates an instance of itself simulating
an instance of DD until DD calls HHH(DD)...
this would continue until out-of-memory error unless aborted.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
> (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
> that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
> /* traceable_dd.c */
> /* K&R version */
> /* HHH's code is unreachable but */
> /* apparently that doesn't matter. */
> /* All that matters is that HHH */
> /* returns 0, which it does. */
>
> int HHH(int (*P)(void))
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> DD();
> puts("DD halted.");
> return 0;
> }
>
> #if 0
> Here's the trace output
>
> main:1 main() called
> DD:1 DD() called
> HHH:1 HHH(DD) called
> HHH:2 return 0
> DD:2 Halt_Status = 0
> DD:3 if (Halt_Status) ... skipped
> DD:4 return Halt_Status
> main:2 DD() returned 0
> main:3 puts("DD halted.")
> main:4 return 0
>
> #endif
>
--
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 Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 20:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YfkCQ.29260$sl72.4551@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #130700 |
On 9/27/25 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/26/2025 5:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 26/09/2025 22:53, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/26/2025 4:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> [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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> int factorial(int n)
>>> {
>>> if (n >= 1)
>>> return n*factorial(n-1);
>>> else
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int factorial_caller()
>>> {
>>> factorial(5);
>>> }
>>>
>>> No Dumbo
>>
>> What are you, six?
>>
>>> because then HHH gets the wrong
>>> answer to that.
>>
>> I said DD's HHH(DD) call, not HHH(other stuff that nobody gives a hoot
>> about).
>>
>
> Its a stupid idea that gets the wrong answer.
> The execution trace of DD emulated by HHH according
> to the semantics of the x86 language proves all of
> the details of how and why I am correct.
And your stupidity in this is that HHH doesn't do a correct simulation
of its input, but stops part way, and thus it doesn't prove what you claim.
Your problem is you just lie to yourself about the meaning of the
fundamental terms-of-art, and thus show your total ignorance and stupidity.
>
> That you won't bother to look at this or are too
> dumb to understand it *IS NOT MY MISTAKE*
So, why can't you show the first instruction ACTUALLY CORRECTLY
SIMULATED by HHH that differs from the execution of the FULL PROGRAM DD
(which include the code of the HHH that it calls) where the behavior
differs.
>
> The execution trace of DD emulated by HHH according
> to the semantics of the c language ALSO proves all
> of the details of how and why I am correct.
Nope, it prove you are just a blantant pathological lying idiot, as you
don't know the meaning of the basic terms-of-art, and thinnk you are
allowed to change their meaning.
This means that in your logic system, NOTHING have an actual definition,
so nothing actually has real meaning, as anything can be redefined.
>
> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) then
> HHH simulates an instance of itself simulating
> an instance of DD until DD calls HHH(DD)...
If only it did.
THe problem is it only PARTIALLY emulates it, and you LIED to it about
what it could assume about its behavior.
>
> this would continue until out-of-memory error unless aborted.
Nope, not for the HHH that exists, as it DOES abort.
Only in your unicorn universe where one actual program can be two
different programs at the same time.
That is the nature of the world you live in, everything is based on lies.
>
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted then
>
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
And since to use this statement, H and D must be computations, and thus
have definite behavior for given inputs, and thus H either does or does
not abort. If it doesn't abort, then the fact that it would be allowed
to is irrelvent, you can't do what you don't do.
And, if H does abort, them it doesn't do the correct simulation you try
to reference, but the actual correct (and thus non-aborting) simulation
of the input will reach the final state, so it was impossible for H to
correctly determine that it won't, since you can't correctly determine
something to happen if it doesn't happen.
You logic is just based on lying about what you are talking about and
changing meaning of words in the middle of the problem, which is just a
form of lying.
>
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
> > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>
>> /* traceable_dd.c */
>> /* K&R version */
>> /* HHH's code is unreachable but */
>> /* apparently that doesn't matter. */
>> /* All that matters is that HHH */
>> /* returns 0, which it does. */
>>
>> int HHH(int (*P)(void))
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> DD();
>> puts("DD halted.");
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> #if 0
>> Here's the trace output
>>
>> main:1 main() called
>> DD:1 DD() called
>> HHH:1 HHH(DD) called
>> HHH:2 return 0
>> DD:2 Halt_Status = 0
>> DD:3 if (Halt_Status) ... skipped
>> DD:4 return Halt_Status
>> main:2 DD() returned 0
>> main:3 puts("DD halted.")
>> main:4 return 0
>>
>> #endif
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 16:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b6vf2$1a6cp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130537 |
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. -- 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 | 2025-09-26 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250926151337.111@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #130547 |
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. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250926121612.571@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #130537 |
On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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. Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible. Mathematicians are a very careful bunch; they generally know when they have a conjecture and when they have a proved theorem. Some of their proofs go for hundreds of pages. Peer reviews of such proofs are able to find flaws. You are not going to find a flaw in a massively accepted, old result that, in in most succinct presentations, takes about a page. You might as well look for a dry spot on a T-shirt that was loaded with rocks and is sitting at the bottom of the ocean. > 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.” That's a thought-terminating cliche, just like, oh, the idea that the more someone protests an accusation, the more guilty he must be. As if someone innocent would not protest? Are you saying that the concensus is /never/ right? Everyone who-so-ever has a contrary opinion to a mathematical consensus is right? Merely the possession of a contrary opinion is evidence of having outwitted everyone? > What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would You've not presented any facts, see. And your approach to a problem in logic is to try to redefine it in some handwavy "extralogical" way and then simply insist that anyone having to do with the original problem should drop that and make the replacement one their agenda. You are not able to earnestly engage with the subject matter in its proper form. -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 14:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10b6rcd$18kvb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130567 |
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 -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 10:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cnp3n$3h1r1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130600 |
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as described in the sig. On 26/09/2025 21:00, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote: > >> *The conventional halting problem question is this* [snipped]>> *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. I think by "proof question" (s)he means the one that's used within the proof which conventionally is "What correct halt status value can be returned ... ? If true then it's not correct, if false then it's not correct, if something else then it doesn't decide because a decision is true or false. There's no correct halt status value that can be returned therefore there's no single halt decider." You see there the proof has a question, the proof question is as olcott said. I think the criticisms levied at olcott can be reflected at the group. I think olcott constructs his/her messages carefully but opaquely through choosing unexpected aspects to mention. It's a raw assertive style perhaps following the advice of many a bad adviser who tells people to be assertive. It doesn't include adjustment of context to place assertions in the A-language or out of it. For example "These above conventional views are proven." People assert very strongly and uniformly that the proof question (the question used in the proof) is as he says it is. It is thus proven (in the traditional sense of proving a real thing by testing it in the real world) to be the "proof question". Each thing he says looks like it has _an_ interpretation in a normal U-language for the group that is true. I'm not sure if the only alternative interpretations are invalid and thus trigger negative emotions due to the reader not needing to backtrack a parse yet perceiving a meaning that could not have been expressed and should not have been expressed (the former not properly preventing judgement of the latter by a curious quirk of humanity). It is worthy of study for the nature of an U-language for logicians and the type of ambiguity resolution failure that it seems to be triggering. It might or might not be a good idea to try to receive such things well personally - perhaps one's humanity would be lost by venturing far from one's interpersonal experiences - it could cause marriage-breaking stuff, for example. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 15:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10cp1n9$3upd1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132705 |
On 10/15/2025 4:21 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as described
> in the sig.
>
> On 26/09/2025 21:00, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> *The conventional halting problem question is this*
> [snipped]>> *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.
>
> I think by "proof question" (s)he means the one that's used within the
> proof which conventionally is "What correct halt status value can be
> returned ... ? If true then it's not correct, if false then it's not
> correct, if something else then it doesn't decide because a decision is
> true or false. There's no correct halt status value that can be returned
> therefore there's no single halt decider." You see there the proof has a
> question, the proof question is as olcott said.
>
Yes.
> I think the criticisms levied at olcott can be reflected at the group. I
> think olcott constructs his/her messages carefully but opaquely through
> choosing unexpected aspects to mention. It's a raw assertive style
> perhaps following the advice of many a bad adviser who tells people to
> be assertive. It doesn't include adjustment of context to place
> assertions in the A-language or out of it.
>
> For example "These above conventional views are proven." People assert
> very strongly and uniformly that the proof question (the question used
> in the proof) is as he says it is. It is thus proven (in the traditional
> sense of proving a real thing by testing it in the real world) to be the
> "proof question".
>
> Each thing he says looks like it has _an_ interpretation in a normal
> U-language for the group that is true. I'm not sure if the only
> alternative interpretations are invalid and thus trigger negative
> emotions due to the reader not needing to backtrack a parse yet
> perceiving a meaning that could not have been expressed and should not
> have been expressed (the former not properly preventing judgement of the
> latter by a curious quirk of humanity).
>
> It is worthy of study for the nature of an U-language for logicians and
> the type of ambiguity resolution failure that it seems to be triggering.
> It might or might not be a good idea to try to receive such things well
> personally - perhaps one's humanity would be lost by venturing far from
> one's interpersonal experiences - it could cause marriage-breaking
> stuff, for example.
>
<Input to LLM systems>
Please think this all the way through without making any guesses
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
abort simulation and return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
(c) If HHH must abort its simulation to prevent its own non-termination
then HHH is correct to abort this simulation and return 0.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>
This is the key anchor of my proof and its question does
have an unequivocally correct answer that everyone here
flat out denies.
I changed it from the original to make it easier for
humans and LLM systems to understand. Each of the five
LLM systems that answered provided their reasoning on
why their answer was correct.
Claude AI, ChatGPT 4.0 and Grok all provided the same
answer on the first try without (c) or asking them not
to guess. Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 had to be told not to
guess. (c) Was added to make it clearer for humans
and both Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 still needs (c).
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
>
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "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 17:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b73mj$1badq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130567 |
On 9/26/2025 3:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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. >>> >>> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible. >>> >> >> That is like pretty much sterile. > > Sometime things are sterile and that is good. Like your surgeon's > gloves, or the interior of your next can of beans, and such. > Pretty much infallible is like pretty much the one and only creator of the Heavens and Earth. >> Generally very reliable seems apt. > > You don't even know the beginning of it. > That I start from a philosophical foundation different than the rules that you learned by rote does not mean that I am incorrect. >> Math and logic people will hold to views that >> are philosophically primarily because they view >> knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible. > > Formal systems are artificial inventions evolving from their axioms. > While we can't say that we know everything about a system just > because we invented its axioms, we know when we have captured an > air-tight truth. > That is sometimes not airtight at all. > It is not a situation in which we are relying on hypotheses, > observations and measurements, which are saddled with conditions. > Computer science guys do not tend exhaustively to check every detail about every nuance of everything that they were taught over and over looking for the tiniest inconsistency. Philosophers of computer science do this. > You're not going to end up with a classical mechanics theory > of Turing Machine halting, distinct from a quantum and relativistic one, > in which they can't decide between loops and strings ... > > The subject matter admits iron-clad conclusions that get permanently > laid to rest. > >> The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain >> semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions. >> That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion > > The POE is utterly sane. > That is just your indoctrination talking. Try the same thing ion relevance logic. > What is nutty is doing what it describe; go around assuming falsehoods > to be true and the deriving nonsense from them with the intent of > adopting a belief in all those falsehoods and the nonsense that follows. > > But that, ironically, perfectly describes your own research programme, > right down to the acronym: > > Principle of Explosion -> POE -> Peter Olcott Experiment > > A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It > is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no > sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. > Like dog shit in a birthday cake. > I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know > in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show". > If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit, > all bets are off. > > Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. > Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things > you dan then prove are garbage out. > Far far better to not let garbage in. > The /reduction ad absurdum/ technique usefully makes a controlled use of > a contradiction. We introduce a contradiction and then derive from it > some other contradictions using the same logical tools that we normally > use for deriving truths from truths. We do that with the specific goal > of arriving at a proposion that we otherwise already know to be false. > At that point we drop regarding as true the entire chain, all the way > back to the initial wrong assumption. > > The benefit is that the contradiction being initially assumed is not > /obviously/ a contradiction, but when we show that it derivews an > /obvious/ contradiction, we readily see that it is so. > > (Note that the diagonal halting proofs do not rely on /reduction ad > absurdum/ whatsoever. They directly show that no decider can be total, > without assuming anything about it.) > *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? -- 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 Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 09:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vdRBQ.14713$DQYd.9305@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #130601 |
On 9/26/25 6:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/26/2025 3:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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. >>>> >>>> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible. >>>> >>> >>> That is like pretty much sterile. >> >> Sometime things are sterile and that is good. Like your surgeon's >> gloves, or the interior of your next can of beans, and such. >> > > Pretty much infallible is like pretty much the > one and only creator of the Heavens and Earth. > >>> Generally very reliable seems apt. >> >> You don't even know the beginning of it. >> > > That I start from a philosophical foundation > different than the rules that you learned > by rote does not mean that I am incorrect. > >>> Math and logic people will hold to views that >>> are philosophically primarily because they view >>> knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible. >> >> Formal systems are artificial inventions evolving from their axioms. >> While we can't say that we know everything about a system just >> because we invented its axioms, we know when we have captured an >> air-tight truth. >> > > That is sometimes not airtight at all. > >> It is not a situation in which we are relying on hypotheses, >> observations and measurements, which are saddled with conditions. >> > > Computer science guys do not tend exhaustively to check every > detail about every nuance of everything that they were taught > over and over looking for the tiniest inconsistency. > > Philosophers of computer science do this. > >> You're not going to end up with a classical mechanics theory >> of Turing Machine halting, distinct from a quantum and relativistic one, >> in which they can't decide between loops and strings ... >> >> The subject matter admits iron-clad conclusions that get permanently >> laid to rest. >> >>> The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain >>> semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions. >>> That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >> >> The POE is utterly sane. >> > > That is just your indoctrination talking. > Try the same thing ion relevance logic. > >> What is nutty is doing what it describe; go around assuming falsehoods >> to be true and the deriving nonsense from them with the intent of >> adopting a belief in all those falsehoods and the nonsense that follows. >> >> But that, ironically, perfectly describes your own research programme, >> right down to the acronym: >> >> Principle of Explosion -> POE -> Peter Olcott Experiment >> >> A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It >> is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no >> sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. >> > > Like dog shit in a birthday cake. > >> I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know >> in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show". >> If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit, >> all bets are off. >> >> Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. >> Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things >> you dan then prove are garbage out. >> > > Far far better to not let garbage in. > >> The /reduction ad absurdum/ technique usefully makes a controlled use of >> a contradiction. We introduce a contradiction and then derive from it >> some other contradictions using the same logical tools that we normally >> use for deriving truths from truths. We do that with the specific goal >> of arriving at a proposion that we otherwise already know to be false. >> At that point we drop regarding as true the entire chain, all the way >> back to the initial wrong assumption. >> >> The benefit is that the contradiction being initially assumed is not >> /obviously/ a contradiction, but when we show that it derivews an >> /obvious/ contradiction, we readily see that it is so. >> >> (Note that the diagonal halting proofs do not rely on /reduction ad >> absurdum/ whatsoever. They directly show that no decider can be total, >> without assuming anything about it.) >> > > *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? > > And where do you get that LIE from? Just yours own stupidity. It seems you don't understand what you read, because you start with the lie that you understand the thing before you expose yourself to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 06:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10b7t2v$1g9pn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130601 |
On 26/09/2025 23:22, olcott wrote: > That I start from a philosophical foundation > different than the rules that you learned > by rote does not mean that I am incorrect. That's true, but being wrong /does/ mean you are incorrect. -- 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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10b7jb7$1e1sh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130601 |
On 9/26/2025 3:22 PM, olcott wrote: [...] > Far far better to not let garbage in. Pot Kettle?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 12:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10b8g2g$1kv1p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130567 |
On 26/09/2025 22:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know > in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show". > If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit, > all bets are off. > > Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. > Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things > you dan then prove are garbage out. > Or to get vaguely topical to c.l.c and c.l.c++ - it also means that if your program "executes" undefined behaviour, all bets are off for the behaviour of your entire program.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b90ts$1pobd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130567 |
On 9/26/2025 3:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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. >>> >>> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible. >>> >> >> That is like pretty much sterile. > > Sometime things are sterile and that is good. Like your surgeon's > gloves, or the interior of your next can of beans, and such. > >> Generally very reliable seems apt. > > You don't even know the beginning of it. > >> Math and logic people will hold to views that >> are philosophically primarily because they view >> knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible. > > Formal systems are artificial inventions evolving from their axioms. > While we can't say that we know everything about a system just > because we invented its axioms, we know when we have captured an > air-tight truth. > > It is not a situation in which we are relying on hypotheses, > observations and measurements, which are saddled with conditions. > > You're not going to end up with a classical mechanics theory > of Turing Machine halting, distinct from a quantum and relativistic one, > in which they can't decide between loops and strings ... > > The subject matter admits iron-clad conclusions that get permanently > laid to rest. > >> The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain >> semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions. >> That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion > > The POE is utterly sane. > > What is nutty is doing what it describe; go around assuming falsehoods > to be true and the deriving nonsense from them with the intent of > adopting a belief in all those falsehoods and the nonsense that follows. > > But that, ironically, perfectly describes your own research programme, > right down to the acronym: > > Principle of Explosion -> POE -> Peter Olcott Experiment > > A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It > is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no > sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. > > I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know > in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show". > If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit, > all bets are off. > > Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. > Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things > you dan then prove are garbage out. > That is exactly my point, otherwise The Moon is made of Green cheese and The Moon is NOT made of Green cheese PROVES that Donald Trump is the Christ. We can fix the POE by giving contradictions have the semantic value of ⊥ and the rule-of-inference that nothing follows from falsum. > The /reduction ad absurdum/ technique usefully makes a controlled use of > a contradiction. We introduce a contradiction and then derive from it > some other contradictions using the same logical tools that we normally > use for deriving truths from truths. We do that with the specific goal > of arriving at a proposion that we otherwise already know to be false. > At that point we drop regarding as true the entire chain, all the way > back to the initial wrong assumption. > > The benefit is that the contradiction being initially assumed is not > /obviously/ a contradiction, but when we show that it derivews an > /obvious/ contradiction, we readily see that it is so. > > (Note that the diagonal halting proofs do not rely on /reduction ad > absurdum/ whatsoever. They directly show that no decider can be total, > without assuming anything about it.) > -- 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 | 2025-09-26 20:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250926130112.166@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #130567 |
On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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. >> >> Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible. >> > > That is like pretty much sterile. Sometime things are sterile and that is good. Like your surgeon's gloves, or the interior of your next can of beans, and such. > Generally very reliable seems apt. You don't even know the beginning of it. > Math and logic people will hold to views that > are philosophically primarily because they view > knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible. Formal systems are artificial inventions evolving from their axioms. While we can't say that we know everything about a system just because we invented its axioms, we know when we have captured an air-tight truth. It is not a situation in which we are relying on hypotheses, observations and measurements, which are saddled with conditions. You're not going to end up with a classical mechanics theory of Turing Machine halting, distinct from a quantum and relativistic one, in which they can't decide between loops and strings ... The subject matter admits iron-clad conclusions that get permanently laid to rest. > The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain > semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions. > That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion The POE is utterly sane. What is nutty is doing what it describe; go around assuming falsehoods to be true and the deriving nonsense from them with the intent of adopting a belief in all those falsehoods and the nonsense that follows. But that, ironically, perfectly describes your own research programme, right down to the acronym: Principle of Explosion -> POE -> Peter Olcott Experiment A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. I believe that POE is closely linked to the principle we know in the systems side of computer science: "one bad bit stops the show". If you interfere with a correct calculation program by flipping a bit, all bets are off. Another face of POE in computing is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. Assuming a falsehood to be true is garbage in; the bogus things you dan then prove are garbage out. The /reduction ad absurdum/ technique usefully makes a controlled use of a contradiction. We introduce a contradiction and then derive from it some other contradictions using the same logical tools that we normally use for deriving truths from truths. We do that with the specific goal of arriving at a proposion that we otherwise already know to be false. At that point we drop regarding as true the entire chain, all the way back to the initial wrong assumption. The benefit is that the contradiction being initially assumed is not /obviously/ a contradiction, but when we show that it derivews an /obvious/ contradiction, we readily see that it is so. (Note that the diagonal halting proofs do not rely on /reduction ad absurdum/ whatsoever. They directly show that no decider can be total, without assuming anything about it.) -- 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 | Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 12:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <87seg71e79.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #130674 |
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: > A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It > is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no > sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. As an aside, the field of paraconsistent logic, which excludes the PoE, tries to study and develop 'inconsistency-tolerant' formal systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic > The entailment relations of paraconsistent logics are propositionally > weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional > inferences valid. The point is that a paraconsistent logic can never > be a propositional extension of classical logic, that is, > propositionally validate every entailment that classical logic > does. In some sense, then, paraconsistent logic is more conservative > or cautious than classical logic. It is due to such conservativeness > that paraconsistent languages can be more expressive than their > classical counterparts including the hierarchy of metalanguages due to > Alfred Tarski and others. Alexis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 11:27 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d64cb1fad28e43c49fa8ca0356a9c5d0b2eec2c.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #130724 |
On Sun, 2025-09-28 at 12:52 +1000, Alexis wrote: > Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: > > > A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It > > is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no > > sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. > > As an aside, the field of paraconsistent logic, which excludes the PoE, > tries to study and develop 'inconsistency-tolerant' formal systems: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic > Don't bother. We already had one and using it ---- C/C++ language. > > The entailment relations of paraconsistent logics are propositionally > > weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional > > inferences valid. The point is that a paraconsistent logic can never > > be a propositional extension of classical logic, that is, > > propositionally validate every entailment that classical logic > > does. In some sense, then, paraconsistent logic is more conservative > > or cautious than classical logic. It is due to such conservativeness > > that paraconsistent languages can be more expressive than their > > classical counterparts including the hierarchy of metalanguages due to > > Alfred Tarski and others. > > > Alexis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 16:20 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <608ff00259b191f9e9401452b8d96d2d821815c7.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #130727 |
On Sun, 2025-09-28 at 11:27 +0800, wij wrote: > On Sun, 2025-09-28 at 12:52 +1000, Alexis wrote: > > Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: > > > > > A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It > > > is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no > > > sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. > > > > As an aside, the field of paraconsistent logic, which excludes the PoE, > > tries to study and develop 'inconsistency-tolerant' formal systems: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic > > > > Don't bother. We already had one and using it ---- C/C++ language. > > > > The entailment relations of paraconsistent logics are propositionally > > > weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional > > > inferences valid. The point is that a paraconsistent logic can never > > > be a propositional extension of classical logic, that is, > > > propositionally validate every entailment that classical logic > > > does. In some sense, then, paraconsistent logic is more conservative > > > or cautious than classical logic. It is due to such conservativeness > > > that paraconsistent languages can be more expressive than their > > > classical counterparts including the hierarchy of metalanguages due to > > > Alfred Tarski and others. > > > > > > Alexis. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 11:27 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <f93192050fadf9d7a8d4a7b74b9dd768ea496bd0.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #130724 |
On Sun, 2025-09-28 at 12:52 +1000, Alexis wrote: > Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: > > > A contradiction is a piece of foreign material in a formal system. It > > is nonsensical to bring it in, and assert it as a truth; it makes no > > sense to do so. Once you do, it creates contagion. > > As an aside, the field of paraconsistent logic, which excludes the PoE, > tries to study and develop 'inconsistency-tolerant' formal systems: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic > > > The entailment relations of paraconsistent logics are propositionally > > weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional > > inferences valid. The point is that a paraconsistent logic can never > > be a propositional extension of classical logic, that is, > > propositionally validate every entailment that classical logic > > does. In some sense, then, paraconsistent logic is more conservative > > or cautious than classical logic. It is due to such conservativeness > > that paraconsistent languages can be more expressive than their > > classical counterparts including the hierarchy of metalanguages due to > > Alfred Tarski and others. > > > Alexis. Don't bother. We already had one and using it ---- C/C++ language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 14:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10b6qp0$18q7n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #130567 |
On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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. > > Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible. > That is like pretty much sterile. Generally very reliable seems apt. Math and logic people will hold to views that are philosophically primarily because they view knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible. > Mathematicians are a very careful bunch; they generally know when they > have a conjecture and when they have a proved theorem. > Probably much more than other fields. > Some of their proofs go for hundreds of pages. Peer reviews of such > proofs are able to find flaws. > > You are not going to find a flaw in a massively accepted, old result > that, in in most succinct presentations, takes about a page. > *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. To see that they are philosophically unsound: On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote: [The halting problem proof question is incorrect] > You might as well look for a dry spot on a T-shirt that was loaded > with rocks and is sitting at the bottom of the ocean. > >> 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.” > > That's a thought-terminating cliche, just like, oh, the idea that the > more someone protests an accusation, the more guilty he must be. > As if someone innocent would not protest? > That is however a very apt characterization of human nature. > Are you saying that the concensus is /never/ right? Everyone > who-so-ever has a contrary opinion to a mathematical consensus is right? > Merely the possession of a contrary opinion is evidence of having > outwitted everyone? > Within math, logic and computer science one can know the truth entirely on the basis of the meaning of expressions of language on the basis of semantic logical entailment. The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions. That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion >> What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would > > You've not presented any facts, see. I have presented expressions that are verified much more strongly then mere facts. They are proven completely true entirely on the basis of their meaning. That no one want to bother to understand the meaning of these expressions is the dishonest aspect of their dishonest dialogue. > And your approach to a problem > in logic is to try to redefine it in some handwavy "extralogical" way > and then simply insist that anyone having to do with the original > problem should drop that and make the replacement one their agenda. > > You are not able to earnestly engage with the subject matter in its > proper form. > See this post to get a more accurate view of this: On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote: [The halting problem proof question is incorrect] -- 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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web