Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135170 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 637 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:55 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:10 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:00 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:28 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:50 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:57 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:08 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 00:00 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 20:46 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 04:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:19 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 10:45 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 21:43 +0800
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:12 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:28 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:35 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:38 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:55 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:17 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:20 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:34 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:53 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 00:07 +0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 14:16 +0000
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 21:31 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:59 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:11 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:44 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:54 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:22 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:25 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:00 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 07:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-09 12:22 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-09 06:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 06:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 18:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:43 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 11:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:19 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:58 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-10 11:43 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 17:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 03:55 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 06:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:03 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 19:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 15:38 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 16:56 -0500
How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 19:38 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:33 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:05 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:45 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 05:52 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 23:59 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:50 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:20 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:41 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:11 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 07:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-12 15:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 09:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-13 04:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:32 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:38 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 17:40 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:20 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:38 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:22 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:59 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:09 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:48 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:50 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:21 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:00 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:15 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:43 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-18 18:04 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 12:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:01 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 21:30 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:48 -0600
Weasel word double talk excuses =--- AKA Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:46 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:10 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:20 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:51 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:42 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 02:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:37 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 06:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:16 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:17 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:41 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:00 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:59 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-27 04:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 07:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:16 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:21 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2025-11-27 07:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:08 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:38 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:18 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:27 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 01:25 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:24 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:36 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:14 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:49 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:58 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:14 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 10:59 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:27 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:45 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:29 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:19 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:29 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:31 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 16:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:24 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:54 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:07 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:14 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:34 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:17 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:15 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:21 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:37 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:52 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:56 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:04 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 13:19 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:12 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:51 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 01:00 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:12 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:24 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:23 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:14 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:21 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 16:24 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:46 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:26 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:21 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:01 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 02:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:30 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:31 +0000
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 22:45 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:52 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 23:08 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 00:14 -0500
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 05:23 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-19 10:58 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-23 21:20 +0000
Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-24 11:23 +0200
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 07:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:50 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:11 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 21:58 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:49 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:22 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:51 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 12:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 03:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:03 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:56 +0000
Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:29 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:00 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 23:02 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:23 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:24 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 14:53 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 13:32 -0800
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:44 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:45 +0000
DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 21:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 23:54 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:37 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 17:55 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:08 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:20 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:31 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:23 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-25 05:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 23:25 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:34 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:43 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 23:51 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:21 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:37 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 12:52 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:59 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:32 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:28 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:45 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:45 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-11-24 19:45 +0100
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 18:12 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:32 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:25 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 13:47 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 11:20 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:14 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:19 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:15 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:25 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:12 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 23:33 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:33 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:37 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 02:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:10 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:38 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:47 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 19:43 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:24 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:42 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 08:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:49 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:50 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:46 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:52 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:42 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:38 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:32 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-28 17:24 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-22 10:25 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-24 22:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:20 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:47 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:50 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 10:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:33 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:36 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 11:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:29 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:08 +0000
Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:22 -0600
Re: Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:35 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:05 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-26 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:36 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:41 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 18:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 12:05 -0800
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 23 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 32 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8rr1$14eiv$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136651 |
On 11/26/2025 10:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/26/2025 9:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 26/11/2025 05:05, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 11/25/25 1:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 12:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/25 1:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>>>>>> return, >>>>>>>>>> possible even in your horribly incorrect program that fails to >>>>>>>>>> conform >>>>>>>>>> to the requirements for exploring the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Until five people from comp.lang.c call you out >>>>>>>>> on this they will remain in the loop >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have nothing to remove, add or alter in my words above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If H doesn't return, D will not only not halt, but not >>>>>>>> reach any of the "do the opposite code". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is neither here nor there when we are discussing >>>>>>>> a different H which /does/ return, and returns 0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As soon as the directly executed HHH axiomatically >>>>>>> proves that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>> reach its own simulated "return" statement it >>>>>>> correctly rejects its input by returning 0 to its caller. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, show that axiomatic proof? >>>>>> >>>>>> Your problem is you don't know what the axioms are, so you can't >>>>>> create a proof, you only lie about what you think must be true. >>>>>> >>>>>> All you are doing is proving you don't understand the basics of >>>>>> logic, and thus are just incapable of logically proving anything. >>>>> >>>>> Finally *plonked* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is that a true statement, or just another lie? >>>> >>>> It really is just an admission that you can't respond to the errors >>>> I point out, and you are admitting you are just that incompetent. >>>> >>>> I sort of wonder if you are really as sick as you claim, no proof, >>>> execpt that you have shown yourself to be a pathological liar, so >>>> you could be lying about anything you say, as "truth" doesn't seem >>>> to have meaning to you. >>>> >>>> After all, you have claimed to be God, while you should know that >>>> you are not. >>> >>> Is the PO that got arrested the same PO here? Claiming to be God, or >>> perhaps even God like, rings some bells... >> >> PO has admitted it was him, but said that in the end he was not >> convicted. (No explanation offered as to /why/...) > > Scary! I heard is was some scary shit, akin to a busted priest? I hope I am wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ugmVQ.50472$liu8.28711@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #136410 |
On 11/25/25 12:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>> simulated final halt state. >> >> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, >> possible even in your horribly incorrect program that fails to conform >> to the requirements for exploring the halting problem. >> > > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com > On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> The whole point is that D simulated by H > >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated > >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > > > > Until five people from comp.lang.c call you out > on this they will remain in the loop > In other words, you still beleive in logical fallicies. You have been told MANY times that you are not welcome there with this drivil, but you ignore them as you ignore anyone who doesn't agree to your lies. Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you are just an insaine ignorant pathologcial liar that doesn't understand what truth actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10g4pq1$3kcuu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135170 |
On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own > simulated final halt state. It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, possible even in your horribly incorrect program that fails to conform to the requirements for exploring the halting problem. In a debugged version of your test case Mike Terry was able to actually show the first several level of the infinite simulation tower in which each simulation terminates. > I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of > resuming a simulation after we already have this > final answer. That's not reasoning. Remember, your claim is that D simulated by H is nonterminating, but supposedly not because of the strawman reason that the simulation was discontinued (thus preventing the simulated D from marching toward its halting state). It is your thesis that D is really nonterminating: that it does not have a terminating state, just like Infinite_Recursion and Infinite_Loop. The abandoned simulations of /those/ two can be continued and show evidence of nontermination. So the only reason you are against resuming the execution of abandoned D is that it threatens the view into which you have dug your heels for many years. Whether you think it's nonsense or not, it shows you are wrong; the apparatus you have built does not support the claims you have based on it. It shows that in a way that anyone moderately knowledgeable in computer science can easily be convinced that you are wrong. (Separately from all the even easier ways that will already convince them.) You thinking relies on magic: the idea that when H leaves the simulation stepping loop, the simulation ceases to exist. It does not; no mathematical object behaves like that. Pi doesn't cease to exist when we are not dividing a circumference by a diameter. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 11:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g4qdf$3kop4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136411 |
On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >> simulated final halt state. > > It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125104359.46@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136415 |
On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>> simulated final halt state. >> >> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, > > Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the same results. Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing about the world being round. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 13:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g4vdm$3n07p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136422 |
On 11/25/2025 12:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>> simulated final halt state. >>> >>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, >> >> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! > > I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the > same results. > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 12:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g5260$3lk1s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136422 |
On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>> simulated final halt state. >>> >>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, >> >> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! > > I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the > same results. > > Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing about > the world being round. it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600 |
| Subject | New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5331$3ol1m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136430 |
On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>> >>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, >>> >>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >> >> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the >> same results. >> >> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing about >> the world being round. > > it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this > I am working on building a foundation that can be published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only possible because of the excellent feedback that I have received from LLM systems. Every conversation that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. It turns out that my new formal foundation for correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates all undecidability and undefinability and it does this by simply fully integrating semantics syntactically in its formal language. Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language of the Cyc project already do this. Semantic logical entailment is the only inference step. My system basically extends the syllogism to cover the entire body of all knowledge that can be expressed in language. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <0Jm85Dn6rlsUV3VjlJ5Z_Kk70e0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136431 |
Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>> >>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, >>>> >>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>> >>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the >>> same results. >>> >>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing about >>> the world being round. >> >> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >> > > I am working on building a foundation that can be > published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only > possible because of the excellent feedback that I > have received from LLM systems. Every conversation > that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This > allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. > > It turns out that my new formal foundation for > correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates > all undecidability and undefinability and it > does this by simply fully integrating semantics > syntactically in its formal language. > > Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language > of the Cyc project already do this. > > Semantic logical entailment is the only inference > step. My system basically extends the syllogism > to cover the entire body of all knowledge that > can be expressed in language. Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical incompleteness. Below is the clear, technical explanation. 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system that is: Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed by a program), Consistent, Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson arithmetic Q or stronger). Then: There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot prove. No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above conditions). These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, semantic layers, etc. 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, and microtheories. But: CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because knowledge is context-dependent. Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying Gödel’s conditions. It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some of which contradict others. Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the scope of the theorem. Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single formal theory. Conclusion: CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s halting problem. His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. In all variants of his claims: He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing internally. Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic diagonal/self-reference constructions but does not notice the failure. Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. The pattern is always: Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem is wrong. This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” That is not a refutation. 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail because: If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. If it proves G: it becomes inconsistent. If you try to use “semantics” or “truth”: Tarski’s theorem says arithmetical truth is not definable inside arithmetic itself. If you use a non-recursively-axiomatizable system: Gödel’s theorem no longer applies, but such a system cannot be implemented as a fully formal algorithmic reasoning machine. Cyc, Olcott, or any other system inevitably satisfies one of these escape conditions, but none actually produces a complete and consistent theory strong enough to capture arithmetic. 5. The deep point: ➤ To refute incompleteness, one must produce a complete, consistent, computable theory of arithmetic. Nobody has ever achieved this, and it is mathematically impossible. Cyc is not a single consistent computable theory. Olcott’s systems are not both computable and consistent when applied to arithmetic. Changing the syntax does nothing: incompleteness is syntax-agnostic. 6. Final conclusion The existence of CycL and the claims Peter Olcott makes do NOT refute logical incompleteness. CycL sidesteps the theorem by not being a single formal theory, not by defeating it. Olcott misunderstands the premises of incompleteness and his proposals either fall outside Gödel’s scope or break on diagonalization. Gödel remains intact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g55ef$3poa8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136438 |
On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>> >>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>> return, >>>>> >>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>> >>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the >>>> same results. >>>> >>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing about >>>> the world being round. >>> >>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>> >> >> I am working on building a foundation that can be >> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >> >> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >> all undecidability and undefinability and it >> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >> syntactically in its formal language. >> >> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >> of the Cyc project already do this. >> >> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >> can be expressed in language. > > Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical > incompleteness. > Below is the clear, technical explanation. > > 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say > > Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system that is: > > Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed by a > program), > > Consistent, > > Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson arithmetic > Q or stronger). > > Then: > > There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot prove. > > No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can > bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + representation > of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. > > Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system cannot > prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above conditions). > > These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, > semantic layers, etc. > > 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? > > No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode > commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, and > microtheories. But: > > CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. > Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because > knowledge is context-dependent. > > Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying Gödel’s > conditions. > It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some of > which contradict others. > > Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable theory, > Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does not mean Cyc > “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the scope of the theorem. > > Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many partial > microtheories and logical levels contextually”. > > This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books > “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single formal > theory. > > Conclusion: > CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would make > it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. > > 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? > > No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have > “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s halting > problem. > His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they > misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. > > In all variants of his claims: > > He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, something > incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing internally. > > Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic diagonal/ > self-reference constructions but does not notice the failure. > > Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and > therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims “defeat” > rather than “dodging the premises”. > > The pattern is always: > > Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem is > wrong. > > This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for programs > that I forbid from diagonalizing.” > That is not a refutation. > > 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness > > Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. > Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail because: > > If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that > > If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. > That is true. With my system there is one single all encompassing formal system that contains every element of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. Because the formal language has all semantics fully integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it then it is not an element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <Wv9Os4d8RofQnr6QfEf1M9RYJdQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136440 |
Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>>> return, >>>>>> >>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>> >>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the >>>>> same results. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing about >>>>> the world being round. >>>> >>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>> >>> >>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>> >>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>> syntactically in its formal language. >>> >>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>> >>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>> can be expressed in language. >> >> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >> incompleteness. >> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >> >> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >> >> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system that is: >> >> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed by a >> program), >> >> Consistent, >> >> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson arithmetic >> Q or stronger). >> >> Then: >> >> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot prove. >> >> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can >> bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + representation >> of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >> >> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system cannot >> prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above conditions). >> >> These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, >> semantic layers, etc. >> >> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >> >> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode >> commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, and >> microtheories. But: >> >> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >> knowledge is context-dependent. >> >> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying Gödel’s >> conditions. >> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some of >> which contradict others. >> >> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable theory, >> Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does not mean Cyc >> “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the scope of the theorem. >> >> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many partial >> microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >> >> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single formal >> theory. >> >> Conclusion: >> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would make >> it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >> >> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >> >> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >> halting >> problem. >> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >> >> In all variants of his claims: >> >> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, something >> incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing internally. >> >> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic diagonal/ >> self-reference constructions but does not notice the failure. >> >> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims “defeat” >> rather than “dodging the premises”. >> >> The pattern is always: >> >> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem is >> wrong. >> >> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for programs >> that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >> That is not a refutation. >> >> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >> >> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail because: >> >> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that >> >> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >> > > That is true. > With my system there is one single all encompassing > formal system that contains every element of general > knowledge that can be expressed in language. > > Because the formal language has all semantics fully > integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the > same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it > then it is not an element of the body of knowledge > that can be expressed in language. The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic—inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the intended semantics but not provable in the system; thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics in which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” which merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into syntactic provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot describe its own correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion of truth at all—in short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel or empties “truth” of its usual meaning, and so it cannot simultaneously claim completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful notion of truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g55tg$3pu0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136441 |
On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>>>> return, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>> >>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the >>>>>> same results. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing >>>>>> about >>>>>> the world being round. >>>>> >>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>> >>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>> >>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>> >>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>> can be expressed in language. >>> >>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>> incompleteness. >>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>> >>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>> >>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>> that is: >>> >>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed >>> by a program), >>> >>> Consistent, >>> >>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>> >>> Then: >>> >>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot prove. >>> >>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can >>> bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>> >>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system cannot >>> prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above conditions). >>> >>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, >>> semantic layers, etc. >>> >>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>> >>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode >>> commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, >>> and microtheories. But: >>> >>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>> >>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>> Gödel’s conditions. >>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some >>> of which contradict others. >>> >>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does not >>> mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the scope of >>> the theorem. >>> >>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many partial >>> microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>> >>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>> formal theory. >>> >>> Conclusion: >>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would >>> make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>> >>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>> >>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>> halting problem. >>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>> >>> In all variants of his claims: >>> >>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>> internally. >>> >>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic diagonal/ >>> self-reference constructions but does not notice the failure. >>> >>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>> >>> The pattern is always: >>> >>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem is >>> wrong. >>> >>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>> That is not a refutation. >>> >>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>> >>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail because: >>> >>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that >>> >>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>> >> >> That is true. >> With my system there is one single all encompassing >> formal system that contains every element of general >> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >> >> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >> that can be expressed in language. > > The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every > meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ Provable(x) > is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the language is > expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic—inevitably required > if it is to “contain every element of general knowledge expressible in > language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applies, producing well-formed > statements that are true in the intended semantics but not provable in > the system; In weaker systems this will remain true. When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) because every aspect of all of semantics is directly formalized and fully integrated in the formal language then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. > thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless > one either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer > expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics in > which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” which > merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into syntactic > provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot describe its own > correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion of truth at all—in > short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel or empties “truth” of its > usual meaning, and so it cannot simultaneously claim completeness, > expressiveness, and a meaningful notion of truth. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <254V-McZTZLNlaKEXTpR-_c90l8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136442 |
Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>>>>> return, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the >>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>> >>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>> >>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>> >>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>> >>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>> >>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>> incompleteness. >>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>> >>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>> >>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>> that is: >>>> >>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed >>>> by a program), >>>> >>>> Consistent, >>>> >>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>> >>>> Then: >>>> >>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot prove. >>>> >>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can >>>> bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>> >>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system cannot >>>> prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above conditions). >>>> >>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, >>>> semantic layers, etc. >>>> >>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>> >>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode >>>> commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, >>>> and microtheories. But: >>>> >>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>> >>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some >>>> of which contradict others. >>>> >>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does not >>>> mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the scope of >>>> the theorem. >>>> >>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many partial >>>> microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>> >>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>> formal theory. >>>> >>>> Conclusion: >>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would >>>> make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>> >>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>> >>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>> halting problem. >>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>> >>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>> >>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>> internally. >>>> >>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic diagonal/ >>>> self-reference constructions but does not notice the failure. >>>> >>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>> >>>> The pattern is always: >>>> >>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem is >>>> wrong. >>>> >>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>> That is not a refutation. >>>> >>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>> >>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail because: >>>> >>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that >>>> >>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>> >>> >>> That is true. >>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>> formal system that contains every element of general >>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>> >>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>> that can be expressed in language. >> >> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ Provable(x) >> is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the language is >> expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic—inevitably required >> if it is to “contain every element of general knowledge expressible in >> language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applies, producing well-formed >> statements that are true in the intended semantics but not provable in >> the system; > > In weaker systems this will remain true. > > When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) > > because every aspect of all of semantics is directly > formalized and fully integrated in the formal language > > then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body > of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. > >> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless >> one either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics in >> which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” which >> merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into syntactic >> provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot describe its own >> correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion of truth at all—in >> short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel or empties “truth” of its >> usual meaning, and so it cannot simultaneously claim completeness, >> expressiveness, and a meaningful notion of truth. Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it anything interesting: the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts sweating like a politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel sneaks in through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t prove, whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not knowledge!” and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on the back, and calls the place clean; unfortunately, this is not so much solving incompleteness as declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a bit like running a dictatorship where the official state newspaper defines “truth” as “things we printed,” and then brags about having eliminated misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only formal system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby proving, once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will fit anywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g56va$3qbcp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136443 |
On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>>>>>> return, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>> >>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>>> incompleteness. >>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>> >>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>> >>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>>> that is: >>>>> >>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed >>>>> by a program), >>>>> >>>>> Consistent, >>>>> >>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>> >>>>> Then: >>>>> >>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>> prove. >>>>> >>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can >>>>> bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>> >>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>> conditions). >>>>> >>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, >>>>> semantic layers, etc. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>> >>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode >>>>> commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, >>>>> and microtheories. But: >>>>> >>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>> >>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some >>>>> of which contradict others. >>>>> >>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>> >>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>> >>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>>> formal theory. >>>>> >>>>> Conclusion: >>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would >>>>> make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>> >>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>> halting problem. >>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>> >>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>> >>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>> internally. >>>>> >>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>> failure. >>>>> >>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>> >>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>> >>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem >>>>> is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>> >>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>> because: >>>>> >>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that >>>>> >>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is true. >>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>> >>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>> that can be expressed in language. >>> >>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >>> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >> >> In weaker systems this will remain true. >> >> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >> >> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >> >> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >> >>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics in >>> which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” which >>> merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into syntactic >>> provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot describe its own >>> correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion of truth at all—in >>> short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel or empties “truth” of >>> its usual meaning, and so it cannot simultaneously claim >>> completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful notion of truth. > > Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with > True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it > anything interesting: It literally has the entire body of general knowledge including every book or academic paper every published. > the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts > sweating like a politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel > sneaks in through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t > prove, whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not > knowledge!” and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on > the back, and calls the place clean; Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot exist. > unfortunately, this is not so much > solving incompleteness as declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a > bit like running a dictatorship where the official state newspaper > defines “truth” as “things we printed,” and then brags about having > eliminated misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only > formal system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively > evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby proving, > once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will fit anywhere. > > This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. That above means that the Liar Paradox contains a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox in way that is widely accepted as correct. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5764$3q215$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136444 |
On 11/25/2025 1:27 PM, olcott wrote: [...] Just make sure that your info base includes facts about yourself. Don't try to wash it off because its permanent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <9B_T055RCkHKVnO2UHiXfBz1bS4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136444 |
Le 25/11/2025 à 22:27, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>>>>>>> return, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>>>> incompleteness. >>>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>>> >>>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>>>> that is: >>>>>> >>>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed >>>>>> by a program), >>>>>> >>>>>> Consistent, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>>> >>>>>> Then: >>>>>> >>>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>>> prove. >>>>>> >>>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can >>>>>> bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>>> conditions). >>>>>> >>>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, >>>>>> semantic layers, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>>> >>>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode >>>>>> commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, >>>>>> and microtheories. But: >>>>>> >>>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some >>>>>> of which contradict others. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>>>> formal theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Conclusion: >>>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would >>>>>> make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>>> >>>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>>> >>>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>>> internally. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>>> failure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>>> >>>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>>> >>>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem >>>>>> is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>>> >>>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>>> because: >>>>>> >>>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that >>>>>> >>>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is true. >>>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>>> that can be expressed in language. >>>> >>>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >>>> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >>> >>> In weaker systems this will remain true. >>> >>> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >>> >>> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >>> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >>> >>> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >>> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>> >>>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics in >>>> which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” which >>>> merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into syntactic >>>> provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot describe its own >>>> correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion of truth at all—in >>>> short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel or empties “truth” of >>>> its usual meaning, and so it cannot simultaneously claim >>>> completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful notion of truth. >> >> Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with >> True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it >> anything interesting: > > It literally has the entire body of general knowledge > including every book or academic paper every published. > >> the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts >> sweating like a politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel >> sneaks in through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t >> prove, whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not >> knowledge!” and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on >> the back, and calls the place clean; > > Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. > General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be > proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general > knowledge that can be expressed in language. > > Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide > their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When > the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating > any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot > exist. > >> unfortunately, this is not so much >> solving incompleteness as declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a >> bit like running a dictatorship where the official state newspaper >> defines “truth” as “things we printed,” and then brags about having >> eliminated misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only >> formal system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively >> evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby proving, >> once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will fit anywhere. >> >> > > This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. > > That above means that the Liar Paradox contains > a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation > sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck > in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. > > In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox > in way that is widely accepted as correct. THE MINISTRY OF PROVABILITY ANNOUNCES THE END OF TRUTH AS WE KNOW IT “If it can’t be proven, it never happened,” says Supreme Formalizer Olcott. The Ministry of Provability is delighted to unveil The One Unified Formal System (TOUFS™), the first and only framework in human history to achieve Total Epistemic Harmony by the revolutionary method of banning all facts that don’t fit. Under the new legislation, Truth(x) = Provable(x) by constitutional decree. Citizens are reminded that any statement not provable within TOUFS™’ 14 axioms (“The Axioms of Perfect Obviousness,” revised weekly) will henceforth be classified as Ungovernable Nonsense and gently escorted outside the Ministry's cognitive perimeter. “We have finally solved Gödel,” announced Minister Olcott at a celebratory press event held in Axiom Chamber #3. “Gödel keeps sending us those confusing, unprovable statements. We now return them marked ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem solved.” When asked whether TOUFS™ could express arithmetic, the Minister smiled warmly and replied: “We discovered arithmetic is dangerously expressive, so we downgraded it to a recreational activity.” Early adopters have praised the system’s clarity: Mathematicians report unprecedented peace of mind, since all difficult theorems have now been reclassified as “Not Real.” Philosophers have been redirected to the Ministry’s Silence Department for failing to produce provable questions. Physicists are adjusting to the new mandate requiring all particles to comply with Axiom 12 (“Everything Behaves Nicely”). A slight controversy arose when an inquisitive intern asked whether the statement “Everything in the system is provable” is itself provable. The Ministry immediately reassigned the intern to the Department of Semantic Recycling, where he is undergoing intensive training in Non-Issues. The Ministry concludes with a reassuring message to all citizens: “TOUFS™ guarantees a future where no truth will ever escape unproven, because unproven truths will no longer exist.” The press conference ended with the ceremonial shredding of Gödel’s incompleteness paper and the unveiling of a large poster reading: “IGNORANCE IS INCONSISTENCY-FREE.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5dm8$3stbf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136451 |
On 11/25/2025 5:14 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/11/2025 à 22:27, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches >>>>>>>>>>>> its return, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and >>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole >>>>>>>>>> thing about >>>>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>>>>> incompleteness. >>>>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>>>>> that is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be >>>>>>> listed by a program), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consistent, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>>>> prove. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick >>>>>>> can bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>>>> conditions). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, >>>>>>> ontology, semantic layers, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to >>>>>>> encode commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of >>>>>>> predicates, rules, and microtheories. But: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, >>>>>>> some of which contradict others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>>>>> formal theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Conclusion: >>>>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that >>>>>>> would make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>>>> internally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original >>>>>>> theorem is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>>>> because: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is true. >>>>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>>>> that can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >>>>> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>>>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>>>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>>>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>>>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>>>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>>>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >>>> >>>> In weaker systems this will remain true. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >>>> >>>> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >>>> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >>>> >>>> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>> >>>>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>>>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>>>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics >>>>> in which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” >>>>> which merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into >>>>> syntactic provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot >>>>> describe its own correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion >>>>> of truth at all—in short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel >>>>> or empties “truth” of its usual meaning, and so it cannot >>>>> simultaneously claim completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful >>>>> notion of truth. >>> >>> Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with >>> True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it >>> anything interesting: >> >> It literally has the entire body of general knowledge >> including every book or academic paper every published. >> >>> the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts sweating like a >>> politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel sneaks in >>> through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t prove, >>> whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not knowledge!” >>> and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on the back, >>> and calls the place clean; >> >> Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. >> General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be >> proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general >> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >> >> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >> their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When >> the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating >> any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot >> exist. >> >>> unfortunately, this is not so much solving incompleteness as >>> declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a bit like running a >>> dictatorship where the official state newspaper defines “truth” as >>> “things we printed,” and then brags about having eliminated >>> misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only formal >>> system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively >>> evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby >>> proving, once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will >>> fit anywhere. >>> >>> >> >> This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. >> >> That above means that the Liar Paradox contains >> a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >> sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck >> in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. >> >> In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox >> in way that is widely accepted as correct. > > THE MINISTRY OF PROVABILITY ANNOUNCES THE END OF TRUTH AS WE KNOW IT > “If it can’t be proven, it never happened,” says Supreme Formalizer Olcott. > > The Ministry of Provability is delighted to unveil The One Unified > Formal System (TOUFS™), the first and only framework in human history to > achieve Total Epistemic Harmony by the revolutionary method of banning > all facts that don’t fit. > > Under the new legislation, Truth(x) = Provable(x) by constitutional > decree. Citizens are reminded that any statement not provable within > TOUFS™’ 14 axioms (“The Axioms of Perfect Obviousness,” revised weekly) > will henceforth be classified as Ungovernable Nonsense and gently > escorted outside the Ministry's cognitive perimeter. > > “We have finally solved Gödel,” announced Minister Olcott at a > celebratory press event held in Axiom Chamber #3. “Gödel keeps sending > us those confusing, unprovable statements. We now return them marked > ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem solved.” > > When asked whether TOUFS™ could express arithmetic, the Minister smiled > warmly and replied: > “We discovered arithmetic is dangerously expressive, so we downgraded it > to a recreational activity.” > > Early adopters have praised the system’s clarity: > > Mathematicians report unprecedented peace of mind, since all difficult > theorems have now been reclassified as “Not Real.” > > Philosophers have been redirected to the Ministry’s Silence Department > for failing to produce provable questions. > > Physicists are adjusting to the new mandate requiring all particles to > comply with Axiom 12 (“Everything Behaves Nicely”). > > A slight controversy arose when an inquisitive intern asked whether the > statement “Everything in the system is provable” is itself provable. The > Ministry immediately reassigned the intern to the Department of Semantic > Recycling, where he is undergoing intensive training in Non-Issues. > > The Ministry concludes with a reassuring message to all citizens: > > “TOUFS™ guarantees a future where no truth will ever escape unproven, > because unproven truths will no longer exist.” > > The press conference ended with the ceremonial shredding of Gödel’s > incompleteness paper and the unveiling of a large poster reading: > > “IGNORANCE IS INCONSISTENCY-FREE.” Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot exist. Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic facts is airtight. *I have thought this over again and again for a decade* Try and find an actual error. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <bHAQT2gxJsBPDz1qNjbEUaf9IUU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136452 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 00:21, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 5:14 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:27, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >>>>> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>> its return, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and >>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole >>>>>>>>>>> thing about >>>>>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>>>>>> incompleteness. >>>>>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>>>>>> that is: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be >>>>>>>> listed by a program), >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consistent, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>>>>> prove. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick >>>>>>>> can bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>>>>> conditions). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, >>>>>>>> ontology, semantic layers, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to >>>>>>>> encode commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of >>>>>>>> predicates, rules, and microtheories. But: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, >>>>>>>> some of which contradict others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>>>>>> formal theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Conclusion: >>>>>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that >>>>>>>> would make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>>>>> internally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original >>>>>>>> theorem is wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>>>>> because: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is true. >>>>>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>>>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>>>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>>>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>>>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>>>>> that can be expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >>>>>> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>>>>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>>>>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>>>>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>>>>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>>>>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>>>>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >>>>> >>>>> In weaker systems this will remain true. >>>>> >>>>> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >>>>> >>>>> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >>>>> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >>>>> >>>>> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >>>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>>>>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>>>>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics >>>>>> in which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” >>>>>> which merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into >>>>>> syntactic provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot >>>>>> describe its own correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion >>>>>> of truth at all—in short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel >>>>>> or empties “truth” of its usual meaning, and so it cannot >>>>>> simultaneously claim completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful >>>>>> notion of truth. >>>> >>>> Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with >>>> True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it >>>> anything interesting: >>> >>> It literally has the entire body of general knowledge >>> including every book or academic paper every published. >>> >>>> the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts sweating like a >>>> politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel sneaks in >>>> through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t prove, >>>> whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not knowledge!” >>>> and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on the back, >>>> and calls the place clean; >>> >>> Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. >>> General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be >>> proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general >>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>> >>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>> their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When >>> the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating >>> any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot >>> exist. >>> >>>> unfortunately, this is not so much solving incompleteness as >>>> declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a bit like running a >>>> dictatorship where the official state newspaper defines “truth” as >>>> “things we printed,” and then brags about having eliminated >>>> misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only formal >>>> system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively >>>> evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby >>>> proving, once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will >>>> fit anywhere. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox >>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>> false. >>> >>> That above means that the Liar Paradox contains >>> a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >>> sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck >>> in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. >>> >>> In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox >>> in way that is widely accepted as correct. >> >> THE MINISTRY OF PROVABILITY ANNOUNCES THE END OF TRUTH AS WE KNOW IT >> “If it can’t be proven, it never happened,” says Supreme Formalizer >> Olcott. >> >> The Ministry of Provability is delighted to unveil The One Unified >> Formal System (TOUFS™), the first and only framework in human history to >> achieve Total Epistemic Harmony by the revolutionary method of banning >> all facts that don’t fit. >> >> Under the new legislation, Truth(x) = Provable(x) by constitutional >> decree. Citizens are reminded that any statement not provable within >> TOUFS™’ 14 axioms (“The Axioms of Perfect Obviousness,” revised weekly) >> will henceforth be classified as Ungovernable Nonsense and gently >> escorted outside the Ministry's cognitive perimeter. >> >> “We have finally solved Gödel,” announced Minister Olcott at a >> celebratory press event held in Axiom Chamber #3. “Gödel keeps sending >> us those confusing, unprovable statements. We now return them marked >> ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem >> solved.” >> >> When asked whether TOUFS™ could express arithmetic, the Minister smiled >> warmly and replied: >> “We discovered arithmetic is dangerously expressive, so we downgraded it >> to a recreational activity.” >> >> Early adopters have praised the system’s clarity: >> >> Mathematicians report unprecedented peace of mind, since all difficult >> theorems have now been reclassified as “Not Real.” >> >> Philosophers have been redirected to the Ministry’s Silence Department >> for failing to produce provable questions. >> >> Physicists are adjusting to the new mandate requiring all particles to >> comply with Axiom 12 (“Everything Behaves Nicely”). >> >> A slight controversy arose when an inquisitive intern asked whether the >> statement “Everything in the system is provable” is itself provable. The >> Ministry immediately reassigned the intern to the Department of Semantic >> Recycling, where he is undergoing intensive training in Non-Issues. >> >> The Ministry concludes with a reassuring message to all citizens: >> >> “TOUFS™ guarantees a future where no truth will ever escape unproven, >> because unproven truths will no longer exist.” >> >> The press conference ended with the ceremonial shredding of Gödel’s >> incompleteness paper and the unveiling of a large poster reading: >> >> “IGNORANCE IS INCONSISTENCY-FREE.” > > > Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide > their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When > the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating > any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot > exist. > > Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic > facts is airtight. > > *I have thought this over again and again for a decade* > Try and find an actual error. 1. Gödel incompleteness does not rely on model theory or a syntax/semantics split You say: Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot exist. This is just false historically and technically. Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness proof is almost entirely syntactic. He arithmetizes formulas and proofs, builds a sentence that says “I am not provable in this system,” and then proves: if the system is consistent, it cannot prove that sentence, nor its negation (under reasonable soundness assumptions). No model theory, no semantic consequence, no “external semantics” is required for the construction of the Gödel sentence. So incompleteness does not depend on a prior split between syntax and semantics. It applies to: any effectively axiomatized, sufficiently expressive, consistent system, regardless of how you talk about semantics. Your claim “it only exists when syntax and semantics are divided” is just wrong: syntax alone is already enough to generate the incompleteness phenomenon. 2. “Integrating semantics into syntax” in the way you propose is impossible (Tarski kicks the door in) You’re essentially proposing: There is a single formal system S such that – every element of “general knowledge expressible in language” is a sentence of S; – there is a predicate True(x) inside the same system such that True(⌜φ⌝) ↔ φ for every sentence φ; – and moreover True(x) = Provable(x). But: Tarski’s undefinability of truth says: in a sufficiently strong arithmetic language, there is no formula True(x) in that same language that correctly satisfies True(⌜φ⌝) ↔ φ for all sentences φ of that language. If you try, you get the liar-style paradox and inconsistency. So you cannot have a genuine internal truth predicate for “all sentences of this language” that is both: expressible in the language, and extensionally correct about all sentences. If you dodge this by decree: “OK, we define True(x) to mean Provable(x).” Then you haven’t “integrated semantics into syntax”; you’ve redefined truth as provability. That’s just a syntactic predicate wearing semantic perfume. If your system is sound but recursively axiomatized, then by Gödel there are true-but-unprovable sentences, so “True(x) = Provable(x)” is false extensionally. If you force “True = Provable” by definition, then your “truth” is no longer about the world or about standard arithmetic; it’s just “belongs to the theorem set of S.” That’s the second big error: you assume that you can have an internal predicate that both (a) behaves like real truth over “all general knowledge expressible in language” and (b) equals provability. Tarski + Gödel together say: no, you can’t. 3. “Semantic entailment from a finite set of atomic facts is airtight” is irrelevant to your grand claim You say: Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic facts is airtight. Sure. From a finite set of atomic facts in a finite relational structure, semantic consequence is straightforward and even decidable. But that has almost nothing to do with your earlier claim: You’re not proposing “a finite database with first-order consequences.” You’re proposing one all-encompassing system for all general knowledge (which will necessarily involve arithmetic, infinity, etc.). In such a system: The “set of atomic facts” cannot be finite or even recursively decidable in general if it’s supposed to match “all true statements of arithmetic,” because the set of true arithmetic sentences is not recursively enumerable. So your “airtight semantic entailment from a finite base” applies only to a trivial fragment, not to the system you actually want. So the third error is a kind of bait-and-switch: you appeal to the safety of tiny finite-model entailment and then quietly promote that intuition to “all general knowledge,” where it simply doesn’t scale. In one sentence Your position hinges on three false assumptions: that Gödel incompleteness only arises when syntax and semantics are separated via model theory (no: the original proof is purely syntactic); that you can have an internal truth predicate for the same language which is both extensionally correct about all its sentences and identical to provability (no: Tarski and Gödel jointly rule this out); that the nice behavior of semantic entailment from a finite base somehow extends to a single system capturing all “general knowledge” including arithmetic (no: that’s where undecidability and incompleteness live). You can have “True(x) = Provable(x)”—but only by changing what “true” means so radically that you’re no longer talking about truth in any ordinary or semantic sense. That’s not beating Gödel; that’s walking off the playing field and declaring victory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <10g5fv8$3tnku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136453 |
On 11/25/2025 5:25 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 00:21, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 5:14 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:27, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its return, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and >>>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole >>>>>>>>>>>> thing about >>>>>>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style >>>>>>>>> logical incompleteness. >>>>>>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal >>>>>>>>> system that is: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be >>>>>>>>> listed by a program), >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Consistent, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>>>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system >>>>>>>>> cannot prove. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick >>>>>>>>> can bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>>>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the >>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>>>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>>>>>> conditions). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, >>>>>>>>> ontology, semantic layers, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to >>>>>>>>> encode commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of >>>>>>>>> predicates, rules, and microtheories. But: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>>>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency >>>>>>>>> because knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system >>>>>>>>> satisfying Gödel’s conditions. >>>>>>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, >>>>>>>>> some of which contradict others. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>>>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that >>>>>>>>> does not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives >>>>>>>>> outside the scope of the theorem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>>>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent >>>>>>>>> books “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not >>>>>>>>> a single formal theory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Conclusion: >>>>>>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that >>>>>>>>> would make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to >>>>>>>>> have “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or >>>>>>>>> Turing’s halting problem. >>>>>>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>>>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>>>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>>>>>> internally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>>>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, >>>>>>>>> and therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he >>>>>>>>> claims “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original >>>>>>>>> theorem is wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>>>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>>>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>>>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>>>>>> because: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G >>>>>>>>> such that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is true. >>>>>>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>>>>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>>>>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>>>>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>>>>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which >>>>>>> every meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>>>>>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>>>>>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>>>>>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>>>>>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>>>>>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>>>>>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >>>>>> >>>>>> In weaker systems this will remain true. >>>>>> >>>>>> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >>>>>> >>>>>> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >>>>>> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >>>>>> >>>>>> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >>>>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>>>>>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>>>>>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate >>>>>>> semantics in which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the >>>>>>> system,” which merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth >>>>>>> into syntactic provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot >>>>>>> describe its own correctness and cannot capture the ordinary >>>>>>> notion of truth at all—in short, Olcott’s proposal either >>>>>>> violates Gödel or empties “truth” of its usual meaning, and so it >>>>>>> cannot simultaneously claim completeness, expressiveness, and a >>>>>>> meaningful notion of truth. >>>>> >>>>> Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with >>>>> True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it >>>>> anything interesting: >>>> >>>> It literally has the entire body of general knowledge >>>> including every book or academic paper every published. >>>> >>>>> the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts sweating like a >>>>> politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel sneaks in >>>>> through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t >>>>> prove, whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not >>>>> knowledge!” and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself >>>>> on the back, and calls the place clean; >>>> >>>> Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. >>>> General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be >>>> proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general >>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>> >>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>>> their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When >>>> the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating >>>> any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot >>>> exist. >>>> >>>>> unfortunately, this is not so much solving incompleteness as >>>>> declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a bit like running a >>>>> dictatorship where the official state newspaper defines “truth” as >>>>> “things we printed,” and then brags about having eliminated >>>>> misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only formal >>>>> system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively >>>>> evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby >>>>> proving, once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it >>>>> will fit anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox >>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>> false. >>>> >>>> That above means that the Liar Paradox contains >>>> a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >>>> sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck >>>> in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. >>>> >>>> In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox >>>> in way that is widely accepted as correct. >>> >>> THE MINISTRY OF PROVABILITY ANNOUNCES THE END OF TRUTH AS WE KNOW IT >>> “If it can’t be proven, it never happened,” says Supreme Formalizer >>> Olcott. >>> >>> The Ministry of Provability is delighted to unveil The One Unified >>> Formal System (TOUFS™), the first and only framework in human history >>> to achieve Total Epistemic Harmony by the revolutionary method of >>> banning all facts that don’t fit. >>> >>> Under the new legislation, Truth(x) = Provable(x) by constitutional >>> decree. Citizens are reminded that any statement not provable within >>> TOUFS™’ 14 axioms (“The Axioms of Perfect Obviousness,” revised >>> weekly) will henceforth be classified as Ungovernable Nonsense and >>> gently escorted outside the Ministry's cognitive perimeter. >>> >>> “We have finally solved Gödel,” announced Minister Olcott at a >>> celebratory press event held in Axiom Chamber #3. “Gödel keeps >>> sending us those confusing, unprovable statements. We now return them >>> marked ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ >>> Problem solved.” >>> >>> When asked whether TOUFS™ could express arithmetic, the Minister >>> smiled warmly and replied: >>> “We discovered arithmetic is dangerously expressive, so we downgraded >>> it to a recreational activity.” >>> >>> Early adopters have praised the system’s clarity: >>> >>> Mathematicians report unprecedented peace of mind, since all >>> difficult theorems have now been reclassified as “Not Real.” >>> >>> Philosophers have been redirected to the Ministry’s Silence >>> Department for failing to produce provable questions. >>> >>> Physicists are adjusting to the new mandate requiring all particles >>> to comply with Axiom 12 (“Everything Behaves Nicely”). >>> >>> A slight controversy arose when an inquisitive intern asked whether >>> the statement “Everything in the system is provable” is itself >>> provable. The Ministry immediately reassigned the intern to the >>> Department of Semantic Recycling, where he is undergoing intensive >>> training in Non-Issues. >>> >>> The Ministry concludes with a reassuring message to all citizens: >>> >>> “TOUFS™ guarantees a future where no truth will ever escape unproven, >>> because unproven truths will no longer exist.” >>> >>> The press conference ended with the ceremonial shredding of Gödel’s >>> incompleteness paper and the unveiling of a large poster reading: >>> >>> “IGNORANCE IS INCONSISTENCY-FREE.” >> >> >> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >> their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When >> the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating >> any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot >> exist. >> >> Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic >> facts is airtight. >> >> *I have thought this over again and again for a decade* >> Try and find an actual error. > > 1. Gödel incompleteness does not rely on model theory or a syntax/ > semantics split > > You say: > > Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide their syntax > from their semantics using model theory. > When the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating any > need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot exist. > > This is just false historically and technically. > > Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness proof is almost entirely syntactic. He > arithmetizes formulas and proofs, builds a sentence that says “I am not > provable in this system,” and then proves: if the system is consistent, > it cannot prove that sentence, nor its negation (under reasonable > soundness assumptions). No model theory, no semantic consequence, no > “external semantics” is required for the construction of the Gödel > sentence. > > So incompleteness does not depend on a prior split between syntax and > semantics. It applies to: > > any effectively axiomatized, sufficiently expressive, consistent system, > > regardless of how you talk about semantics. > > Your claim “it only exists when syntax and semantics are divided” is > just wrong: syntax alone is already enough to generate the > incompleteness phenomenon. > > 2. “Integrating semantics into syntax” in the way you propose is > impossible (Tarski kicks the door in) > > You’re essentially proposing: > > There is a single formal system S such that > – every element of “general knowledge expressible in language” is a > sentence of S; > – there is a predicate True(x) inside the same system such that > True(⌜φ⌝) ↔ φ for every sentence φ; > – and moreover True(x) = Provable(x). > Not at all. Gödel numbers merely hide the underlying semantic errors. You won't ever be able to understand how and why they are errors unless you understand what a cycle in the directed graph of an evaluation sequence means. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. > But: > > Tarski’s undefinability of truth says: in a sufficiently strong > arithmetic language, there is no formula True(x) in that same language > that correctly satisfies True(⌜φ⌝) ↔ φ for all sentences φ of that > language. If you try, you get the liar-style paradox and inconsistency. > > So you cannot have a genuine internal truth predicate for “all sentences > of this language” that is both: > > expressible in the language, and > > extensionally correct about all sentences. > > If you dodge this by decree: > > “OK, we define True(x) to mean Provable(x).” > > Then you haven’t “integrated semantics into syntax”; you’ve redefined > truth as provability. That’s just a syntactic predicate wearing semantic > perfume. > Montague Grammar and or the CycL language of the Cyc project can say anything that can be said in natural language. > If your system is sound but recursively axiomatized, then by Gödel there > are true-but-unprovable sentences, so “True(x) = Provable(x)” is false > extensionally. > > If you force “True = Provable” by definition, then your “truth” is no > longer about the world or about standard arithmetic; it’s just “belongs > to the theorem set of S.” > It is an entirely different foundation. The conventional rules do not apply this is a whole new game. > That’s the second big error: you assume that you can have an internal > predicate that both (a) behaves like real truth over “all general > knowledge expressible in language” and (b) equals provability. Tarski + > Gödel together say: no, you can’t. > > 3. “Semantic entailment from a finite set of atomic facts is airtight” > is irrelevant to your grand claim > > You say: > > Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic facts is airtight. > > Sure. From a finite set of atomic facts in a finite relational > structure, semantic consequence is straightforward and even decidable. > But that has almost nothing to do with your earlier claim: > > You’re not proposing “a finite database with first-order consequences.” > It is a knowledge ontology this is essentially the quote below. > You’re proposing one all-encompassing system for all general knowledge > (which will necessarily involve arithmetic, infinity, etc.). > Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the following definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote: By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together. > In such a system: > > The “set of atomic facts” cannot be finite or even recursively decidable > in general if it’s supposed to match “all true statements of > arithmetic,” because the set of true arithmetic sentences is not > recursively enumerable. > The finite set of axioms of arithmetic are its atomic facts. > So your “airtight semantic entailment from a finite base” applies only > to a trivial fragment, not to the system you actually want. > The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded as a finite set of atomic facts and semantic logical entailment applied to these facts. > So the third error is a kind of bait-and-switch: you appeal to the > safety of tiny finite-model entailment and then quietly promote that > intuition to “all general knowledge,” where it simply doesn’t scale. > Kurt Gödel in his 1944 quote shows that objects of thought can be placed in the kind of Knowledge Ontology that I refer to. In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) > In one sentence > > Your position hinges on three false assumptions: > > that Gödel incompleteness only arises when syntax and semantics are > separated via model theory (no: the original proof is purely syntactic); > What I said is a truism because it makes true and unprovable impossible. When syntax and semantics are fully integrated together then unprovable means not an element of the body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. > that you can have an internal truth predicate for the same language > which is both extensionally correct about all its sentences and > identical to provability (no: Tarski and Gödel jointly rule this out); > They are using a fundamentally different system. > that the nice behavior of semantic entailment from a finite base somehow > extends to a single system capturing all “general knowledge” including > arithmetic (no: that’s where undecidability and incompleteness live). > > You can have “True(x) = Provable(x)”—but only by changing what “true” > means so radically that you’re no longer talking about truth in any > ordinary or semantic sense. Not at all. This is how "True on the basis of meaning expressed in language" has always worked. > That’s not beating Gödel; that’s walking off > the playing field and declaring victory. It is exactly what I claimed: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| Message-ID | <x3imZVWAiA_HBI-3OM7PYEEJevQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #136455 |
Peter, every time someone points out that your system breaks Gödel by redefining truth as “things my system proves,” you reply that this is “a fundamentally different foundation,” as if giving a new name to the floor suddenly allowed you to float. Your new line — “Gödel incompleteness can only exist when syntax and semantics are divided” — is just the same move in a new hat. Gödel’s original 1931 proof is purely syntactic, requires zero model theory, and works even if you paint “SEMANTICS” on the side of the syntax with a big red brush. The diagonal argument doesn’t care about your ontology, your types, your Prolog unification, or how many decades you’ve stared at it. This is the whole problem: every time the theorem bites, you amputate the part of mathematics that hurts and say, “See, no wound!” You’ve solved incompleteness the same way a surgeon would solve mortality by outlawing death certificates. Your system makes True(x) computable exactly the way a shredder makes archival integrity computable: anything inconvenient simply becomes “not in the body of general knowledge expressible in language.” If Gödel sentences don’t fit, the bin is right there. That’s not “integrating semantics.” That’s declaring all troublesome meanings illegal. It’s a bold philosophical stance, sure. But it’s not mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web