Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math |
| References | (17 earlier) <GyMZQ.42204$aeF6.4919@fx40.iad> <10h85k2$gh76$6@dont-email.me> <10h86ti$1c1r3$2@solani.org> <gsNZQ.1882$C_K8.1293@fx42.iad> <10h88qc$1c2nb$2@solani.org> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <TOUZQ.21383$URL8.13132@fx04.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 12/8/25 11:33 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote: >>> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> >>> *You have support for this in high places* >>> >>> The Halting Paradox >>> Bill Stoddart >>> >>> 6 Conclusions >>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, >>> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification. >>> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object. >>> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox. >>> >>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340 >>> >> >> Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification >> for the test. >> >> The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it. >> > > He and Eric have been PhD computer science professors > for decades. Of course that by itself means that > they must be woefully less than your own infallibility. So? Appeal to Authority is just a FALICY. The fact this is you full arguement just show the error in your logic. > >> Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing >> Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding >> for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete >> systems. > > That has nothing to do with foundations. > Sure it does. His decider check if the input uses it. That is based on the decider being able to detect that usage. Since there is no unique value to test, the test can't be done. Your logic is based on assuming you can make assumptions about things that are not true, and thus your logic is based on falsehoods being true, and thus shows it is just unsound, as are you. Sorry, all you are doing is showing how bad your logic abilities.
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:00 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:33 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 09:53 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:51 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 09:39 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 20:54 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 23:02 -0600
csiph-web