Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory |
| References | (25 earlier) <10h84b8$1bvst$1@solani.org> <NBMZQ.42371$aeF6.1611@fx40.iad> <10h86b0$1c0rh$1@solani.org> <9sNZQ.1877$C_K8.965@fx42.iad> <10h88kv$1c2nb$1@solani.org> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <XOUZQ.21385$URL8.15291@fx04.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 12/8/25 11:30 PM, polcott wrote:
> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>>>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>>>>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you
>>>>>> just refuse to answer the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied
>>>>>> about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof
>>>>>> that you are smarter than me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running
>>>>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>>>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>>>>>> or syntactic property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the
>>>>>> answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will give you a much simpler example.
>>>>> If a universal truth predicate is defined
>>>>> to return true when and expression is true
>>>>> and false when an expression is false then
>>>>> what does it correctly return for this:
>>>>> True("What time is it")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have a problem with you definition,
>>>>
>>>> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement
>>>> is true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or a
>>>> statement without a truth value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That makes perfect sense to me, what is a
>>> halt decider defined this way?
>>>
>>> true if it is determined that it halts else false.
>>
>> No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.
>>
>
> True(X) if X is determined to be True,
> false if false, gibberish or paradox.
Only in your LIES.
That has been one of your core problems, you never bothered to learn the
ACTUAL meaning of the terms, but just guessed based on what you
>
>> Just like the True predicate isn't asking if we can prove the
>> statement, just if it *is* true,
>
> On what basis? (I spent 28 years on this).
The DEFINITION of it.
Your problem is you WASTED 28 years by walking in ignorance. If you had
bothered to actually learn the definitions, as opposed to incorrectly
guess them based on your zero principle analysis you might have come up
with something.'
As it is, you just proved your ignorance.
>
>> and true can be different then proven. That truth can be based on an
>> infinite sequence of inferences, as that *IS* how truth is defined.
>>
>> The program DD() you have defined does halt because your HHH you have
>> defined returns 0 when HHH(DD) is called.
>>
>> The fact that HHH can't determine this doesn't change the correct
>> answer, it just makes HHH wrong.
>>
>> Truth is not subjective, but objective.
>>
>>>
>>>> Since, "What Time is it" doesn't have a truth value (as it is a
>>>> question, not an asserting)
>>>>
>>>> True("What time is it") is False.
>>>>
>>>> Again, your problem is you don't know the meaning of the words, and
>>>> try to redefine them to match your ignorancd.
>>>>
>>>> That makes you world just a lie.
>>>
>>> I examine the philosophical foundations of these things
>>> that everyone else simply takes as "given".
>>>
>>
>> But don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>
> Like I said everyone here thinks that
> examining philosophical foundations is nuts.
To examine the philosphical foundations, you need to KNOW those
foundations. Your problem is you don't understand the foundations of
Formal Logic, one of which is that you can't change the rules of a
system and stay in it,
>
> These foundations are already established and
> been infallibly determined to be perfect.
Yes, but you don't know them, because you started with false
assumptions, and then build an unsound system off of your lies.
>
>> Since you fundamentally change the meaning of some of the words,
>> nothing you "think up" is actually applicable.
>>
>> This come, in part, because you are just ignorant of many basic facts
>> about how logic works.
>
>
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:32 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 17:53 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:07 -0600
Re: A new category of thought dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:19 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 16:55 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:04 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:49 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 09:26 -0600
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:46 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:52 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-12-05 19:57 -0700
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 21:18 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:01 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:40 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:47 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:16 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:04 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 09:55 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:43 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 22:16 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 21:50 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-07 05:32 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-12-07 15:49 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:38 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 07:32 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 07:37 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:55 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 17:15 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 21:50 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:26 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:40 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:47 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 19:18 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 19:00 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 20:34 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:57 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:16 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 22:22 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:50 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:30 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 10:05 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:14 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 07:07 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:41 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:57 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:30 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:53 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:33 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:42 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:03 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 06:12 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 07:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:18 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 20:23 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:51 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 16:27 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:53 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:17 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 16:35 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 20:10 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:49 -0800
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:50 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:59 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-01 23:11 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 21:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 22:44 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:19 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:21 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:13 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 19:50 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 13:02 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:15 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 10:53 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:00 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:41 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 09:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:48 +0200
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-05 09:30 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 10:41 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:37 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:24 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:39 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 08:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-09 15:15 +0200
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 10:22 -0600
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 12:04 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-14 13:02 +0200
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 20:01 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 17:37 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 13:44 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:08 -0500
csiph-web