Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #345584 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-04-20 11:57 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-06-30 06:54 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 309 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 11:57 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-21 09:41 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 08:33 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 10:19 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 02:48 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 11:19 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 08:17 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-23 10:06 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-23 08:49 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-24 09:33 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-04-22 17:06 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 20:21 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-04-24 00:19 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 21:12 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 21:14 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 18:25 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 18:29 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-20 17:50 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:32 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-27 07:53 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:19 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 09:50 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:39 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 21:52 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 09:14 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:29 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 11:05 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 13:16 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:29 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 14:08 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 13:33 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 14:47 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 14:02 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 15:06 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 14:58 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:10 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 15:18 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:39 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 16:25 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 17:38 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:03 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 18:36 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:45 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:37 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 19:01 -0600
The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 20:19 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 19:54 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:17 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 20:31 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:42 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 20:49 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 22:06 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 15:18 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 16:45 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 15:56 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:04 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:34 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:57 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:02 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:10 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:17 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:49 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 00:01 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:20 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 07:55 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 09:40 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:33 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:01 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:10 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:20 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:34 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:57 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:06 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:40 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:50 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 13:23 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:47 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:11 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:28 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:50 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 15:10 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 17:43 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 17:09 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 19:05 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 18:39 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 20:01 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 19:23 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 21:03 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 00:02 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 08:45 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:48 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:17 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:12 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:21 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:38 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:46 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:43 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 15:22 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:11 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:49 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:13 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:15 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:21 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:35 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:54 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:09 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:19 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:44 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:52 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:23 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:31 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:42 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-01 19:18 +0000
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:45 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:51 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:56 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:02 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:05 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 13:31 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:13 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:29 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:37 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:50 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:57 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:04 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 17:15 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 18:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:36 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 21:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:00 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:17 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:18 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:29 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:34 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:43 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:59 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 00:01 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:03 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:57 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:51 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 12:04 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 11:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 12:55 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 13:13 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:22 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:33 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 15:52 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 15:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:54 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:12 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:23 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:40 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:13 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:32 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:35 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:47 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:49 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 20:03 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:22 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:36 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:50 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:10 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:10 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:18 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:36 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:40 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:47 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 17:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 16:51 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:58 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:05 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:19 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:43 -0400
The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:11 -0500
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 23:23 -0400
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:58 +0300
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:16 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:48 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:58 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:07 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:46 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:55 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:10 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:11 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:02 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:18 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:43 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:04 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:27 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:45 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:53 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:35 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 16:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:57 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:55 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:01 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:10 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:08 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:12 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:00 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:03 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:41 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:38 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 09:40 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:37 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:32 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 09:37 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-07-03 17:27 +0000
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 21:31 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:17 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:04 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:11 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 16:56 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:06 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:08 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:42 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:51 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:07 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:26 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:18 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:58 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:24 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:16 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:55 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:49 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:28 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:38 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:35 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:20 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:37 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:13 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 14:32 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:08 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:06 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:07 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:11 -0400
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 16:01 -0500
Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 16:12 -0500
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 17:30 -0400
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:04 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-29 10:50 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:01 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-26 20:01 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 15:54 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-26 20:16 -0400
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-27 12:30 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 09:53 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-27 19:15 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 15:10 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-27 21:03 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 16:57 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 10:34 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:18 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 09:37 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 09:17 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-30 10:55 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 07:01 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-01 11:24 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 09:54 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 10:47 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 11:01 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 14:35 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 12:54 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 15:36 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 13:14 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 15:41 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:47 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-02 11:04 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 07:36 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-03 10:56 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 10:22 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 06:14 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 12:04 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:14 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-27 22:01 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 17:22 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 11:10 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:30 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 10:11 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 10:35 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-29 14:27 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-01 21:17 +0200
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 12:34 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 14:38 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-01 22:10 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-02 16:26 +0200
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-02 18:47 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:06 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-06 21:37 +0200
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 13:48 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 12:59 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 16:10 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-07 01:12 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-04 16:31 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 20:56 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 06:54 +0100
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 14:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <1128uug$3iv5u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347424 |
On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>
>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>
>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an
>> output of either 0 or 1?
>>
> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>
A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs, so
there is nothing to ignore. What an algorithm might do to *compute* the
mapping has nothing to do with the mapping.
Here's a simpler example. Consider the following mapping, with the
domain being integers from 0 to 255:
input | output
--------------
0 | 4
1 | 4
2 | 4
3 | 4
...
253 | 4
254 | 4
255 | 4
i.e. for all inputs in the domain, output 4.
Requirement: an algorithm that computes the above mapping.
The following algorithm meets this requirement:
int foo(unsigned char x)
{
return 4;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 13:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <1129017$3k1s2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347430 |
On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>
>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an
>>> output of either 0 or 1?
>>>
>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>
>
> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
{
return 0;
}
By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
My HHH applies the operational semantics of
C to its finite string input DD to correctly
determine that the DD input to HHH has no PTS
well-founded justification tree within these
operational semantics.
With your screwed up notion of a halt decider this
would be correct.
int HHH(ptr DD)
{
if (5 > 3)
return 0;
}
My system pays attention to how true on the basis
of meaning expressed in language is actually computed.
--
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]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 14:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <11290fl$3iv5u$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347435 |
On 7/3/2026 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>
>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an
>>>> output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>
>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>
>>
>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
> {
> return 0;
> }
The above algorithm does in fact compute this mathematical mapping:
input | output
------------------
(any int) | 0
>
> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
>
> My HHH applies the operational semantics of
> C to its finite string input DD to correctly
> determine that the DD input to HHH has no PTS
> well-founded justification tree within these
> operational semantics.
>
> With your screwed up notion of a halt decider this
> would be correct.
>
> int HHH(ptr DD)
> {
> if (5 > 3)
> return 0;
> }
The above partial halt decider meets the below requirements for all
algorithms that do not halt:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 15:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <11296ff$3m2np$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347438 |
On 7/3/2026 1:53 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part
>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to
>>>>> an output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>>
>>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>>
>>>
>>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
>> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> The above algorithm does in fact compute this mathematical mapping:
>
> input | output
> ------------------
> (any int) | 0
>
>>
>> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
>> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
>>
>> My HHH applies the operational semantics of
>> C to its finite string input DD to correctly
>> determine that the DD input to HHH has no PTS
>> well-founded justification tree within these
>> operational semantics.
>>
>> With your screwed up notion of a halt decider this
>> would be correct.
>>
>> int HHH(ptr DD)
>> {
>> if (5 > 3)
>> return 0;
>> }
>
Because it ignores the input it is not any halt
function at all.
--
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]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 16:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <11297r4$3iv5u$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347443 |
On 7/3/2026 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 1:53 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part
>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more
>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to
>>>>>>>> outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to
>>>>>> an output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
>>> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
>>> {
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>> The above algorithm does in fact compute this mathematical mapping:
>>
>> input | output
>> ------------------
>> (any int) | 0
>>
>>>
>>> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
>>> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
>>>
>>> My HHH applies the operational semantics of
>>> C to its finite string input DD to correctly
>>> determine that the DD input to HHH has no PTS
>>> well-founded justification tree within these
>>> operational semantics.
>>>
>>> With your screwed up notion of a halt decider this
>>> would be correct.
>>>
>>> int HHH(ptr DD)
>>> {
>>> if (5 > 3)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>
> Because it ignores the input it is not any halt
> function at all.
False, as proven by the below which you dishonestly erased.
>> The above partial halt decider meets the below requirements for all
>> algorithms that do not halt:
>>
>>
>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
>> described as <X> with input Y:
>>
>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
>> following mapping:
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 10:57 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112aeck$3vpos$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347443 |
On 03/07/2026 23:35, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 1:53 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part
>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more
>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to
>>>>>>>> outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to
>>>>>> an output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
>>> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
>>> {
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>> The above algorithm does in fact compute this mathematical mapping:
>>
>> input | output
>> ------------------
>> (any int) | 0
>>
>>>
>>> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
>>> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
>>>
>>> My HHH applies the operational semantics of
>>> C to its finite string input DD to correctly
>>> determine that the DD input to HHH has no PTS
>>> well-founded justification tree within these
>>> operational semantics.
>>>
>>> With your screwed up notion of a halt decider this
>>> would be correct.
>>>
>>> int HHH(ptr DD)
>>> {
>>> if (5 > 3)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>
> Because it ignores the input it is not any halt
> function at all.
So even though you reject the logic you agree with the conclusion.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 10:55 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112ae9c$3vpos$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347435 |
On 03/07/2026 21:45, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>
>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an
>>>> output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>
>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>
>>
>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
By construing the above mapping as a non-mapping you disconnect from
Common Languge and lose your ablility to communicate.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 12:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112be9a$9unr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347475 |
On 7/4/2026 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 03/07/2026 21:45, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part
>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to
>>>>> an output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>>
>>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>>
>>>
>>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
>> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
>> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
>
> By construing the above mapping as a non-mapping you disconnect from
> Common Languge and lose your ablility to communicate.
>
I will not tolerate that math hijacks the term
"mapping" to ignore requirement that there must
be some actual correspondence between inputs and
outputs.
A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
its actual input according to the operational semantics
of this input to the behavior that this input actually
specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
--
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]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 13:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112bepg$a86o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347503 |
On 7/4/2026 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 03/07/2026 21:45, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part
>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more
>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to
>>>>>>>> outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to
>>>>>> an output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs,
>>> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
>>> {
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
>>> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
>>
>> By construing the above mapping as a non-mapping you disconnect from
>> Common Languge and lose your ablility to communicate.
>>
>
> I will not tolerate that math hijacks the term
> "mapping" to ignore requirement that there must
> be some actual correspondence between inputs and
> outputs.
The mathematical mapping *is* the correspondence. For example:
input | output
--------------
0 | 4
1 | 4
2 | 4
3 | 4
...
253 | 4
254 | 4
255 | 4
i.e. for all inputs in the domain, output 4.
Requirement: an algorithm that computes the above mapping.
The following algorithm meets this requirement:
int foo(unsigned char x)
{
return 4;
}
>
> A actual halt function must compute
The mathematical halting function:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 14:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <11291bp$3kftj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347430 |
On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a >>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>>> >>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >>> >>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an >>> output of either 0 or 1? >>> >> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING >> > > A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs, so > there is nothing to ignore. What an algorithm might do to *compute* the > mapping has nothing to do with the mapping. > It is conventionally construed as a mapping. It is not even conventionally construed as a halt function, not even a halt function that gets the wrong answer. -- 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]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 15:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <11291jq$3kg87$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347439 |
On 7/3/2026 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>
>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an
>>>> output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>
>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>
>>
>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs, so
>> there is nothing to ignore. What an algorithm might do to *compute*
>> the mapping has nothing to do with the mapping.
>>
>
> It is conventionally construed as a mapping.
> It is not even conventionally construed as a halt
> function, not even a halt function that gets the
> wrong answer.
Here's a simpler example. Consider the following mapping, with the
domain being integers from 0 to 255:
input | output
--------------
0 | 4
1 | 4
2 | 4
3 | 4
...
253 | 4
254 | 4
255 | 4
i.e. for all inputs in the domain, output 4.
Requirement: an algorithm that computes the above mapping.
The following algorithm meets this requirement:
int foo(unsigned char x)
{
return 4;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 11:00 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112aeia$3vpos$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347439 |
On 03/07/2026 22:08, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a >>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >>>> >>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an >>>> output of either 0 or 1? >>>> >>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING >>> >> >> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs, so >> there is nothing to ignore. What an algorithm might do to *compute* >> the mapping has nothing to do with the mapping. > > It is conventionally construed as a mapping. More importantly, it satisfies the definition of "mapping". > It is not even conventionally construed as a halt > function, not even a halt function that gets the > wrong answer. Irrelevant, as the claim was that H does not implement the halt function. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 12:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112becs$9unr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347477 |
On 7/4/2026 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 03/07/2026 22:08, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >>>>> >>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to >>>>> an output of either 0 or 1? >>>>> >>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING >>>> >>> >>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs, >>> so there is nothing to ignore. What an algorithm might do to >>> *compute* the mapping has nothing to do with the mapping. >> >> It is conventionally construed as a mapping. > > More importantly, it satisfies the definition of "mapping". > >> It is not even conventionally construed as a halt >> function, not even a halt function that gets the >> wrong answer. > > Irrelevant, as the claim was that H does not implement the halt > function. > If it ignores input it is no function of this input. -- 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]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 10:41 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112adff$3vj58$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347424 |
On 03/07/2026 21:10, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a >>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>> >>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>> >>> >>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >> >> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an >> output of either 0 or 1? >> > Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING No, but dbush's program H implements a mapping anyway. It just is a different mapping from the one a halt decider is required to do. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 08:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112b2c4$5o83$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347471 |
On 7/4/2026 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 03/07/2026 21:10, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>
>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an
>>> output of either 0 or 1?
>>>
>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>
> No, but dbush's program H implements a mapping anyway. It just is
> a different mapping from the one a halt decider is required to do.
>
Making it complete nonsense.
A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
its actual input according to the operational semantics
of this input to the behavior that this input actually
specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
01 int DD()
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 DD();
12 HHH(DD);
13 }
The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
idea who its caller is.
--
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]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 09:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112b2h1$51rf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347491 |
On 7/4/2026 9:38 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 03/07/2026 21:10, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a >>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >>>> >>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an >>>> output of either 0 or 1? >>>> >>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING >> >> No, but dbush's program H implements a mapping anyway. It just is >> a different mapping from the one a halt decider is required to do. >> > > Making it complete nonsense. > > A actual halt function must compute The mathematical halting function: Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y: A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping: (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 10:37 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112ad8h$3vh86$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347413 |
On 2026-07-02 dbush wrote:
> The halting problem doesn't actually have self reference, as
> algorithms can be copied as in the below example of algorithm D:
>
> void D(ptr *I)
> {
> // algorithm D; input: I
> ptr *X = D;
> ptr *Y = I;
> int result;
> {
> // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
> result = 0;
> }
> if (result == 1) {
> while (1);
> }
> }
>
> Which is the counter example input to algorithm H:
>
> int H(ptr *X, ptr *Y)
> {
> int result;
> {
> // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
> result = 0;
> }
> return result;
> }
On 03/07/2026 18:36, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>
>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>> to support his claim.
>
> His halt decider did not look at its input.
For every possible input his H halts and returns either 0 for false
or 1 for true. Therefore his H is a decider. It return 0 for D
although D halts so the decider H is not a halt decider.
> His input merely halted and did not call
> this halt decider. He used {} in a way that
> made no sense in C.
His use of {} is perfectly correct by C rules and as meaningful ans
usually. Your false claim (not shown above) is false.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 08:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112b217$5kl7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347470 |
On 7/4/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2026-07-02 dbush wrote:
>
>> The halting problem doesn't actually have self reference, as
> > algorithms can be copied as in the below example of algorithm D:
>>
>> void D(ptr *I)
>> {
>> // algorithm D; input: I
>> ptr *X = D;
>> ptr *Y = I;
>> int result;
>> {
>> // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
>> result = 0;
>> }
>> if (result == 1) {
>> while (1);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Which is the counter example input to algorithm H:
>>
>> int H(ptr *X, ptr *Y)
>> {
>> int result;
>> {
>> // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
>> result = 0;
>> }
>> return result;
>> }
>
> On 03/07/2026 18:36, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>
>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>> to support his claim.
>>
>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>
> For every possible input his H halts and returns either 0 for false
> or 1 for true. Therefore his H is a decider. It return 0 for D
> although D halts so the decider H is not a halt decider.
>
counter-factual H always returns 0.
>> His input merely halted and did not call
>> this halt decider. He used {} in a way that
>> made no sense in C.
>
> His use of {} is perfectly correct by C rules and as meaningful ans
> usually. Your false claim (not shown above) is 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.
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]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 09:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112b2bi$51rf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347489 |
On 7/4/2026 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2026-07-02 dbush wrote:
>>
>>> The halting problem doesn't actually have self reference, as
>> > algorithms can be copied as in the below example of algorithm D:
>>>
>>> void D(ptr *I)
>>> {
>>> // algorithm D; input: I
>>> ptr *X = D;
>>> ptr *Y = I;
>>> int result;
>>> {
>>> // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
>>> result = 0;
>>> }
>>> if (result == 1) {
>>> while (1);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Which is the counter example input to algorithm H:
>>>
>>> int H(ptr *X, ptr *Y)
>>> {
>>> int result;
>>> {
>>> // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
>>> result = 0;
>>> }
>>> return result;
>>> }
>>
>> On 03/07/2026 18:36, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>
>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>>>> to support his claim.
>>>
>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>
>> For every possible input his H halts and returns either 0 for false
>> or 1 for true. Therefore his H is a decider. It return 0 for D
>> although D halts so the decider H is not a halt decider.
>>
>
> counter-factual H always returns 0.
Which means the condition "either 0 or 1" is satisfied.
It seems we need to add "or" to the list of basic high school level
logic topics you don't understand.
>
>>> His input merely halted and did not call
>>> this halt decider. He used {} in a way that
>>> made no sense in C.
>>
>> His use of {} is perfectly correct by C rules and as meaningful ans
>> usually. Your false claim (not shown above) is false.
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 17:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <1128rea$md6$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #347405 |
In article <1127v18$39n5f$1@dont-email.me>, Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > [...] No. Keep olcott's bullshit out of comp.lang.c. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web