Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, sci.math.symbolic |
| Subject | Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? |
| Date | 2026-05-03 08:59 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10t7kcs$2uha2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <10t5mn6$2c8h4$7@dont-email.me> <10t5o64$2egrm$1@dont-email.me> <10t6efr$2k0ij$1@dont-email.me> <10t6h8r$2kmb8$1@dont-email.me> <10t6ijs$2k0ij$8@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't solvable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is undecidable due to the form of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this understanding??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains with undecidable input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how this is progress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get a decision on whether DD halts or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one >>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of >>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an >>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem... >>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a "unsolved >>>>>>>>> problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever written >>>>>>>>> classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just like u >>>>>>>>> seem to think now >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only >>>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>> >>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>> >>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>> >>> >>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want, >>> >> >> It is an accurate analogy. > > i can't agree > All incorrect questions are the same in that they are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers. >> >>> but asking whether a turing machine halts or not is not a category >>> error. any real turing machine either belongs to the set of halting >>> machines or it doesn't. that's a truth by the law of excluded middle, >>> and if u don't agree then ur just wrong. >>> >> >> It never has been about halting machines it >> has always been about semantic properties of >> finite strings. > > ...where the finite string encodes a turing machine, One indirect reference away from the machine itself. > and the semantic > property is in regards to the behavior of that encoded machine... > The semantic property is the behavior that the finite string specifies. It is common knowledge across all of proof theoretic semantics that proofs of inputs must be finite or input is invalid. >> >>> and in fact we already /know/ DD belongs to the set of halting >>> machines, something i've seen you agree to just a few months ago >>> >>> u just keep not responding to that agreed fact, and that does not >>> bode well for whatever it is ur tryin to peddle in the moment. >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. This required establishing a new foundation
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 16:19 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 14:46 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 16:53 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 16:13 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 18:20 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 16:27 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 18:36 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 17:51 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 20:23 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:13 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 22:56 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 01:21 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 07:45 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:09 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 14:49 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 15:10 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 13:27 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 15:52 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 20:12 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 23:00 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 21:23 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 08:59 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-04 09:21 +0300
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 10:29 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-05 11:50 +0300
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 08:54 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-07 10:09 +0300
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 02:14 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:07 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:14 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:16 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:21 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-11 22:17 +0100
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:19 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-12 15:28 +0100
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 11:03 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 20:57 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 07:32 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 11:59 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:08 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 14:48 -0500
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 13:20 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 20:50 -0700
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2026-05-02 15:50 +0000
Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 11:02 -0500
csiph-web