Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #141185 > unrolled thread

Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory

Contents

  Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 08:59 -0500
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-12 11:03 -0700
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 15:52 -0500
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 08:03 -0700
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 10:32 -0500
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 08:39 -0700
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 11:02 -0500
                yes another possible ct-thesis hole? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 09:45 -0700
                yet another possible ct-thesis hole??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 09:49 -0700
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2026-05-24 17:49 +0000
                  Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:21 -0700
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2026-05-24 17:34 +0000
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 13:16 -0500
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 12:56 -0600
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:05 -0500
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 13:11 -0600
                  Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:16 -0500
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-24 14:36 -0700
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 15:45 -0600
                  Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-24 23:26 -0700
                    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-25 09:18 -0500
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2026-06-23 11:36 +0000
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-26 10:56 +0300
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 09:01 -0500
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 08:37 -0700
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 10:50 -0500
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 09:31 -0700
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 12:05 -0500
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 22:54 -0700
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-27 10:21 +0300
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-14 13:52 +0100
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 08:12 -0500
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-15 20:50 -0500
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 13:13 -0500
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-19 17:42 -0600
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 19:15 -0500
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-19 19:31 -0600
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 10:46 +0300
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:37 -0500
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:32 +0300

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#141185 — Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings

Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.

I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

This required establishing a new foundation

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#141186

On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
> relations between finite strings.
> 
> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
> is categorically impossible.
> 

DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
expressed in language

-- 
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141187

On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>> relations between finite strings.
>>
>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>> is categorically impossible.
>>
> 
> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
> expressed in language
> 

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.

This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
HHH1/DD.

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

This required establishing a new foundation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141198

On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>
>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>
>>
>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>> expressed in language
>>
> 
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
> 
> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
> 
> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
> HHH1/DD.
> 

therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth value 
is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output the truth.

therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no universal 
decider, only partial ones

-- 
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141200

On 5/13/2026 10:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>
>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>>> expressed in language
>>>
>>
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>
>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>> HHH1/DD.
>>
> 
> therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth value 
> is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output the truth.
> 

DD as input to HHH fails to be grounded in a semantic value
this is merely rejected as erroneous input to HHH thus does
not derive any unfathomable enigma.

> therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no universal 
> decider, only partial ones
> 

In the same way that we have no universal truth predicate:
Is "What the Fuck" true or false?

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

This required establishing a new foundation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141201

On 5/13/26 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2026 10:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>>>> expressed in language
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>
>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>
>>
>> therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth value 
>> is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output the truth.
>>
> 
> DD as input to HHH fails to be grounded in a semantic value
> this is merely rejected as erroneous input to HHH thus does
> not derive any unfathomable enigma.
> 
>> therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no universal 
>> decider, only partial ones
>>
> 
> In the same way that we have no universal truth predicate:
> Is "What the Fuck" true or false?
> 

HH1 responds to the input DD quite accurately. the underlying question 
of whether DD halts or not is simply _not_ garbage.

ur analogy does not capture the nature of these context-dependent 
computations, no matter how many times u repeat it polcott. the question 
itself is fine, it's just the nature of computing makes computing it 
somewhat context-dependent

-- 
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141202

On 5/13/2026 10:39 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 5/13/26 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2026 10:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth 
>>> value is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output the 
>>> truth.
>>>
>>
>> DD as input to HHH fails to be grounded in a semantic value
>> this is merely rejected as erroneous input to HHH thus does
>> not derive any unfathomable enigma.
>>
>>> therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no 
>>> universal decider, only partial ones
>>>
>>
>> In the same way that we have no universal truth predicate:
>> Is "What the Fuck" true or false?
>>
> 
> HH1 responds to the input DD quite accurately. the underlying question 
> of whether DD halts or not is simply _not_ garbage.
> 
> ur analogy does not capture the nature of these context-dependent 
> computations, no matter how many times u repeat it polcott. the question 
> itself is fine, it's just the nature of computing makes computing it 
> somewhat context-dependent
> 

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
(PhD Computer Science professor Eric Hehner:2018)

When we understand that the linguistic context of who is asked the 
question is an aspect of the full meaning of this question then we have 
a (yes/no) question that is defined to have no correct (yes/no) answer.

When anyone else besides Carol is asked this question the linguistic 
context changes making it a different question. This seems isomorphic
to the above halting problem proof question.

E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Even to this date thousands of years later no one yet
even agrees the the Liar Paradox simply is not a truth
bearer. This seems to me that short-circuits are hard-wired
into human brains. It is like a PhD math professor that
does not understand that 2 + 3 = 5, and instead considers
1st grade arithmetic to be an unfathomable enigma.

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

This required establishing a new foundation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141203 — yes another possible ct-thesis hole?

On 5/13/26 9:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2026 10:39 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 5/13/26 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2026 10:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth 
>>>> value is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output 
>>>> the truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD as input to HHH fails to be grounded in a semantic value
>>> this is merely rejected as erroneous input to HHH thus does
>>> not derive any unfathomable enigma.
>>>
>>>> therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no 
>>>> universal decider, only partial ones
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the same way that we have no universal truth predicate:
>>> Is "What the Fuck" true or false?
>>>
>>
>> HH1 responds to the input DD quite accurately. the underlying question 
>> of whether DD halts or not is simply _not_ garbage.
>>
>> ur analogy does not capture the nature of these context-dependent 
>> computations, no matter how many times u repeat it polcott. the 
>> question itself is fine, it's just the nature of computing makes 
>> computing it somewhat context-dependent
>>
> 
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
> (PhD Computer Science professor Eric Hehner:2018)
> 
> When we understand that the linguistic context of who is asked the 
> question is an aspect of the full meaning of this question then we have 
> a (yes/no) question that is defined to have no correct (yes/no) answer.
> 
> When anyone else besides Carol is asked this question the linguistic 
> context changes making it a different question. This seems isomorphic
> to the above halting problem proof question.
> 
> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
> 
> Even to this date thousands of years later no one yet
> even agrees the the Liar Paradox simply is not a truth
> bearer. This seems to me that short-circuits are hard-wired
> into human brains. It is like a PhD math professor that
> does not understand that 2 + 3 = 5, and instead considers
> 1st grade arithmetic to be an unfathomable enigma.
> 

right... but unlike the liar's paradox, DD does halt _and_ there is a 
decider HHH1 that can respond correct to the input

i wonder if we can turn the halting problem into a proof against the 
ct-thesis.

for any given partial halting classifier (decider/recognizer) we can 
define a machine outside it's scope of classification,

but our non-machine analysis cannot be referenced and contradicted like so

the tough part here would be proving that our non-machine analysis at 
that point *is* a _computation_ vs just a _proof_

-- 
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141204 — yet another possible ct-thesis hole???

On 5/13/26 9:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2026 10:39 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 5/13/26 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2026 10:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth 
>>>> value is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output 
>>>> the truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD as input to HHH fails to be grounded in a semantic value
>>> this is merely rejected as erroneous input to HHH thus does
>>> not derive any unfathomable enigma.
>>>
>>>> therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no 
>>>> universal decider, only partial ones
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the same way that we have no universal truth predicate:
>>> Is "What the Fuck" true or false?
>>>
>>
>> HH1 responds to the input DD quite accurately. the underlying question 
>> of whether DD halts or not is simply _not_ garbage.
>>
>> ur analogy does not capture the nature of these context-dependent 
>> computations, no matter how many times u repeat it polcott. the 
>> question itself is fine, it's just the nature of computing makes 
>> computing it somewhat context-dependent
>>
> 
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
> (PhD Computer Science professor Eric Hehner:2018)
> 
> When we understand that the linguistic context of who is asked the 
> question is an aspect of the full meaning of this question then we have 
> a (yes/no) question that is defined to have no correct (yes/no) answer.
> 
> When anyone else besides Carol is asked this question the linguistic 
> context changes making it a different question. This seems isomorphic
> to the above halting problem proof question.
> 
> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
> 
> Even to this date thousands of years later no one yet
> even agrees the the Liar Paradox simply is not a truth
> bearer. This seems to me that short-circuits are hard-wired
> into human brains. It is like a PhD math professor that
> does not understand that 2 + 3 = 5, and instead considers
> 1st grade arithmetic to be an unfathomable enigma.
> 

right... but unlike the liar's paradox, DD _does_ halt *and* there is a 
decider HHH1 that _can_ respond correctly to the input.

i wonder if we can turn the halting problem into a proof against the 
ct-thesis...

for any given partial halting classifier (decider/recognizer) we can 
define a machine outside it's scope of classification,

but our non-machine analysis cannot be referenced and contradicted like 
so, such that we can compute/prove the behavior for any input machine...

the tough part here would be proving that our non-machine analysis at 
that point *is* a _computation_ vs just a _proof_

-- 
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141321

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/2026 10:39 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 5/13/26 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2026 10:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth 
>>>> value is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output the 
>>>> truth.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> DD as input to HHH fails to be grounded in a semantic value
>>> this is merely rejected as erroneous input to HHH thus does
>>> not derive any unfathomable enigma.
>>> 
>>>> therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no 
>>>> universal decider, only partial ones
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the same way that we have no universal truth predicate:
>>> Is "What the Fuck" true or false?
>>> 
>> 
>> HH1 responds to the input DD quite accurately. the underlying question 
>> of whether DD halts or not is simply _not_ garbage.
>> 
>> ur analogy does not capture the nature of these context-dependent 
>> computations, no matter how many times u repeat it polcott. the question 
>> itself is fine, it's just the nature of computing makes computing it 
>> somewhat context-dependent
>> 
> 
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
> (PhD Computer Science professor Eric Hehner:2018)

Straw man, showing that you are just diverting the question, because you
KNOW that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Your problem is your world doesn’t understand the categorical difference
between a will-full actor like “Carol”, and a deterministic actor like a
program, such as HH or DD.

Perhaps your problem is that you sold your ability to be will-full, or are
just so stupid as to have lost that capability,

> 
> When we understand that the linguistic context of who is asked the 
> question is an aspect of the full meaning of this question then we have 
> a (yes/no) question that is defined to have no correct (yes/no) answer.

Yes, it can impact the answer to a SUBJECTIVE question which include a
will-full actor.

It can not impact the answer to an OBJECTIVE question, for which the
behavior of a program given defined input definitely is.

Al your comparison shows is that you are too stupid to understand that if
HH is a program, then its answer to any question is predetermined by its
coding, and thus your arguement just shows your stupidity.
> 
> When anyone else besides Carol is asked this question the linguistic 
> context changes making it a different question. This seems isomorphic
> to the above halting problem proof question.
> 
> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
> 
> Even to this date thousands of years later no one yet
> even agrees the the Liar Paradox simply is not a truth
> bearer. This seems to me that short-circuits are hard-wired
> into human brains. It is like a PhD math professor that
> does not understand that 2 + 3 = 5, and instead considers
> 1st grade arithmetic to be an unfathomable enigma.
> 

Which agains shows your stupidity, as what you claim is un agreed to is
standard knowledge in most of the field. I suppose part of the problem is
you don’t even understand how the field of logic and philosophy is built
and divided, thinking everything is part of everything which is just part
of your insanity.

The “Halting Problem” is in the field of Computability theory which is a
Formal Logic system with DEFINED rules, including the definition of what is
“Truth”, and you aren’t allowed to change that by using ideas not part of
that Formal System.

It seems, you just don’t know what any of that means, but just stupidly lie
claiming you are smarter than the people in the field, when it is just that
you are too stupid to understand your stupidity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141327

On 5/24/2026 10:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2026 10:39 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 5/13/26 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2026 10:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> therefore the claim that the input cannot be grounded in a truth
>>>>> value is not categorically true. it's only HHH that cannot output the
>>>>> truth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DD as input to HHH fails to be grounded in a semantic value
>>>> this is merely rejected as erroneous input to HHH thus does
>>>> not derive any unfathomable enigma.
>>>>
>>>>> therefore we're stuck at the same place as the consensus: no
>>>>> universal decider, only partial ones
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the same way that we have no universal truth predicate:
>>>> Is "What the Fuck" true or false?
>>>>
>>>
>>> HH1 responds to the input DD quite accurately. the underlying question
>>> of whether DD halts or not is simply _not_ garbage.
>>>
>>> ur analogy does not capture the nature of these context-dependent
>>> computations, no matter how many times u repeat it polcott. the question
>>> itself is fine, it's just the nature of computing makes computing it
>>> somewhat context-dependent
>>>
>>
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>> (PhD Computer Science professor Eric Hehner:2018)
> 
> Straw man, showing that you are just diverting the question, because you
> KNOW that you don’t know what you are talking about.
> 
> Your problem is your world doesn’t understand the categorical difference
> between a will-full actor like “Carol”, and a deterministic actor like a
> program, such as HH or DD.
> 
> Perhaps your problem is that you sold your ability to be will-full, or are
> just so stupid as to have lost that capability,
> 
>>
>> When we understand that the linguistic context of who is asked the
>> question is an aspect of the full meaning of this question then we have
>> a (yes/no) question that is defined to have no correct (yes/no) answer.
> 
> Yes, it can impact the answer to a SUBJECTIVE question which include a
> will-full actor.
> 
> It can not impact the answer to an OBJECTIVE question, for which the
> behavior of a program given defined input definitely is.
> 
> Al your comparison shows is that you are too stupid to understand that if
> HH is a program, then its answer to any question is predetermined by its
> coding, and thus your arguement just shows your stupidity.
>>
>> When anyone else besides Carol is asked this question the linguistic
>> context changes making it a different question. This seems isomorphic
>> to the above halting problem proof question.
>>
>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> Even to this date thousands of years later no one yet
>> even agrees the the Liar Paradox simply is not a truth
>> bearer. This seems to me that short-circuits are hard-wired
>> into human brains. It is like a PhD math professor that
>> does not understand that 2 + 3 = 5, and instead considers
>> 1st grade arithmetic to be an unfathomable enigma.
>>
> 
> Which agains shows your stupidity, as what you claim is un agreed to is
> standard knowledge in most of the field. I suppose part of the problem is
> you don’t even understand how the field of logic and philosophy is built
> and divided, thinking everything is part of everything which is just part
> of your insanity.
> 
> The “Halting Problem” is in the field of Computability theory which is a
> Formal Logic system with DEFINED rules, including the definition of what is
> “Truth”, and you aren’t allowed to change that by using ideas not part of
> that Formal System.
> 
> It seems, you just don’t know what any of that means, but just stupidly lie
> claiming you are smarter than the people in the field, when it is just that
> you are too stupid to understand your stupidity.
> 
> 
> 

Shit man... You are right!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141320

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>> relations between finite strings.
>>> 
>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>> is categorically impossible.
>>> 
>> 
>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be 
>> expressed in language
>> 
> 
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
> 
> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
> 
> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
> HHH1/DD.
> 


Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just admitting that
you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.

You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you admit
that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of Mathematics and
its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics clearly
exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist some
statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the definition of
the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
compute/prove.

Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
understand, 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141322

On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>
>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>> expressed in language
>>>
>>
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>
>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>> HHH1/DD.
>>
> 
> 
> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just admitting that
> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
> 
> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you admit
> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of Mathematics and
> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics clearly
> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist some
> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the definition of
> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
> compute/prove.
> 
> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
> understand,
> 

When we exclude the logically impossible from what
we call limitations then computer science has no
actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
definable.

Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the existing
foundation to make this straightforward.


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141323

olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>> expressed in language
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>
>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
>> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just admitting 
>> that
>> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
>>
>> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you admit
>> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of Mathematics and
>> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics clearly
>> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist some
>> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the 
>> definition of
>> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
>> compute/prove.
>>
>> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
>> understand,
>>
> 
> When we exclude the logically impossible from what
> we call limitations then computer science has no
> actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
> of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
> definable.

Computer science still has limitations. Complete the following 
pseudocode in under one minute on anything except a quantum computer:

n_0 = 1
for i = 1 to 1 zillion billion
   n_i = n_(i-1) + 2

I call it a limitation if you can't execute in under one minute. What do 
you call it?

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141324

On 5/24/2026 1:56 PM, phoenix wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
>>> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just admitting 
>>> that
>>> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
>>>
>>> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you admit
>>> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of Mathematics 
>>> and
>>> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics 
>>> clearly
>>> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist some
>>> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the 
>>> definition of
>>> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
>>> compute/prove.
>>>
>>> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
>>> understand,
>>>
>>
>> When we exclude the logically impossible from what
>> we call limitations then computer science has no
>> actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
>> of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
>> definable.
> 
> Computer science still has limitations. Complete the following 
> pseudocode in under one minute on anything except a quantum computer:
> 

That is not computer science, it is the current
state of the art of hardware implementation.

Everything that is NOT computable on the basis of finite
string transformations is outside of the scope of computation.
Computability has never been concerned with the time that
a computation takes as long as this time is finite.

> n_0 = 1
> for i = 1 to 1 zillion billion
>    n_i = n_(i-1) + 2
> 
> I call it a limitation if you can't execute in under one minute. What do 
> you call it?
> 


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141325

olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2026 1:56 PM, phoenix wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
>>>> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just 
>>>> admitting that
>>>> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
>>>>
>>>> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you 
>>>> admit
>>>> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of 
>>>> Mathematics and
>>>> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics 
>>>> clearly
>>>> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist 
>>>> some
>>>> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the 
>>>> definition of
>>>> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
>>>> compute/prove.
>>>>
>>>> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
>>>> understand,
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we exclude the logically impossible from what
>>> we call limitations then computer science has no
>>> actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
>>> of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
>>> definable.
>>
>> Computer science still has limitations. Complete the following 
>> pseudocode in under one minute on anything except a quantum computer:
>>
> 
> That is not computer science, it is the current
> state of the art of hardware implementation.
> 
> Everything that is NOT computable on the basis of finite
> string transformations is outside of the scope of computation.
> Computability has never been concerned with the time that
> a computation takes as long as this time is finite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_algorithms

"In computer science, the analysis of algorithms is the process of 
finding the computational complexity of algorithms—the amount of time, 
storage, or other resources needed to execute them."

Please admit that you are naïve. You are missing some pieces of the 
puzzle, it is clear to me.

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141326

On 5/24/2026 2:11 PM, phoenix wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2026 1:56 PM, phoenix wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
>>>>> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just 
>>>>> admitting that
>>>>> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you 
>>>>> admit
>>>>> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of 
>>>>> Mathematics and
>>>>> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics 
>>>>> clearly
>>>>> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist 
>>>>> some
>>>>> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the 
>>>>> definition of
>>>>> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
>>>>> compute/prove.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
>>>>> understand,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we exclude the logically impossible from what
>>>> we call limitations then computer science has no
>>>> actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
>>>> of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
>>>> definable.
>>>
>>> Computer science still has limitations. Complete the following 
>>> pseudocode in under one minute on anything except a quantum computer:
>>>
>>
>> That is not computer science, it is the current
>> state of the art of hardware implementation.
>>
>> Everything that is NOT computable on the basis of finite
>> string transformations is outside of the scope of computation.
>> Computability has never been concerned with the time that
>> a computation takes as long as this time is finite.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_algorithms
> 
> "In computer science, the analysis of algorithms is the process of 
> finding the computational complexity of algorithms—the amount of time, 
> storage, or other resources needed to execute them."
> 
> Please admit that you are naïve. You are missing some pieces of the 
> puzzle, it is clear to me.
> 

Computability
Computability
Computability
Computability
Computability


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141329

On 5/24/26 11:56 AM, phoenix wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
>>> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just admitting 
>>> that
>>> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
>>>
>>> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you admit
>>> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of Mathematics 
>>> and
>>> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics 
>>> clearly
>>> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist some
>>> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the 
>>> definition of
>>> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
>>> compute/prove.
>>>
>>> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
>>> understand,
>>>
>>
>> When we exclude the logically impossible from what
>> we call limitations then computer science has no
>> actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
>> of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
>> definable.
> 
> Computer science still has limitations. Complete the following 
> pseudocode in under one minute on anything except a quantum computer:
> 
> n_0 = 1
> for i = 1 to 1 zillion billion
>    n_i = n_(i-1) + 2
> 
> I call it a limitation if you can't execute in under one minute. What do 
> you call it?
> 

the limits to computation (computability) are not about pragmatism.

computability is what is a possible in an unbounded but finite time, 
regardless of how hard/pragmatic it is to undertake the computation on 
any given machine.

complexity theory is what deals in how pragmatic/hard a solution to some 
problem.

-- 
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141330

dart200 wrote:
> On 5/24/26 11:56 AM, phoenix wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
>>>> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just 
>>>> admitting that
>>>> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
>>>>
>>>> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you 
>>>> admit
>>>> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of 
>>>> Mathematics and
>>>> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics 
>>>> clearly
>>>> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist 
>>>> some
>>>> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the 
>>>> definition of
>>>> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
>>>> compute/prove.
>>>>
>>>> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
>>>> understand,
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we exclude the logically impossible from what
>>> we call limitations then computer science has no
>>> actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
>>> of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
>>> definable.
>>
>> Computer science still has limitations. Complete the following 
>> pseudocode in under one minute on anything except a quantum computer:
>>
>> n_0 = 1
>> for i = 1 to 1 zillion billion
>>    n_i = n_(i-1) + 2
>>
>> I call it a limitation if you can't execute in under one minute. What 
>> do you call it?
>>
> 
> the limits to computation (computability) are not about pragmatism.
> 
> computability is what is a possible in an unbounded but finite time, 
> regardless of how hard/pragmatic it is to undertake the computation on 
> any given machine.
> 
> complexity theory is what deals in how pragmatic/hard a solution to some 
> problem.
> 
I guess I'm not familiar with this. All I know is it goes back to Turing 
or something. My work hovers around complexity instead.

-- 
War in the east
War in the west
War up north
War down south
War War

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141332

On 5/24/26 2:45 PM, phoenix wrote:
> dart200 wrote:
>> On 5/24/26 11:56 AM, phoenix wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2026 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2026 1:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/26 6:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD halts and it's not outside the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>>>> expressed in language
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>>> E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As input DD to proof theoretic halt prover HHH it specifies
>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation this PTS requires input DD
>>>>>> to HHH to be rejected as not being grounded in a truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the case for the proof theoretic halt prover pair
>>>>>> HHH1/DD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which just proves that a “proof theoretic halt prover” isn’t a “Halt
>>>>> Decider” per the definitions of the field, and you are just 
>>>>> admitting that
>>>>> you are nothing but a life-long pathological liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You declared life long goal is proven to be just a lie, unless you 
>>>>> admit
>>>>> that your stupidity by trying to exclude the existence of 
>>>>> Mathematics and
>>>>> its properties as part of “the body of knowledge”, as Mathematics 
>>>>> clearly
>>>>> exists within the body of knowledge, and it proves that there exist 
>>>>> some
>>>>> statements which HAVE an actual existing truth value per the 
>>>>> definition of
>>>>> the word, just a value that we do not, and can not know let alone
>>>>> compute/prove.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your whole world is just based on LIES and ignoring things you can’t
>>>>> understand,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we exclude the logically impossible from what
>>>> we call limitations then computer science has no
>>>> actual limitations, PA is complete, and every element
>>>> of the body of knowledge expressed in language is
>>>> definable.
>>>
>>> Computer science still has limitations. Complete the following 
>>> pseudocode in under one minute on anything except a quantum computer:
>>>
>>> n_0 = 1
>>> for i = 1 to 1 zillion billion
>>>    n_i = n_(i-1) + 2
>>>
>>> I call it a limitation if you can't execute in under one minute. What 
>>> do you call it?
>>>
>>
>> the limits to computation (computability) are not about pragmatism.
>>
>> computability is what is a possible in an unbounded but finite time, 
>> regardless of how hard/pragmatic it is to undertake the computation on 
>> any given machine.
>>
>> complexity theory is what deals in how pragmatic/hard a solution to 
>> some problem.
>>
> I guess I'm not familiar with this. All I know is it goes back to Turing 
> or something. My work hovers around complexity instead.
> 

for example:

brute forcing a 2,048-bit RSA key is highly complex/pragmatically 
impossible task with modern tech, but it is certainly a computable task: 
we can certainly solve the problem within a finite time and space even 
if that amount is impractical.

computability theory is not talked about very much in applied real-world 
computing because ofc real-world applied computing will only be in 
regards to computable tasks.

basic cs education may touch on computability, usually in the realm of 
the halting problem as an example of an undecidable problem, perhaps 
even broaching the more general subject of rice's theorem, but the vast 
vast majority of it will be on practical solutions are already known to 
be computable. but tbh i didn't learn much about computability at all in 
my cs education.

furthermore computability is generally consider somewhat of a solved 
branch of computing forming limits that when questioned usually brings 
about quite a lot of ridicule.

-- 
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory

csiph-web