Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #641072 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8h0i$11k1u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641129 |
On 11/25/2025 6:38 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:36, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>>> >>>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>> >>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>>> proof of its truth. >>>> >>>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>>> They didn’t. >>>> >>>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>>> freaks them out. >>>> >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>>> >>>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization >>>>> — it just gives it nicer types. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>> 01 G >>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>>> >>>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>>> >>>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>>> disappear. >>>>> It doesn’t. >>>>> Only your theory does that. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>>> >>>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >>> >>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >>> >>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >>> >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >>> >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning >>> reduces to proof. >>> >>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >>> >>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem >>> out of existence. >>> >>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >>> Mathematics does not. >>> >> >> Do you now what an infinite loop is in programming? >> If a payroll calculation is stuck in an infinite >> loop is that a good thing? > > Peter, yes — I know what an infinite loop is in programming. > And that is exactly why your analogy misses the point. > > An infinite loop is a runtime problem in a program. Hummm... Not necessarily? Think of a server loop. It can halt if it gets a certain command, but ideally, it wants to be up running "forever", in a sense... Think of an infinite IFS fractal loop that ideally wants to plot forever. Its process runs for as long as it can. The hardware can die out, but that does not mean the code halted, just its "vehicle", so to speak... > But Godel’s fixed point is not a program, and nobody is trying to “run” it. > > Mathematics does not evaluate G like code. > It does not simulate G, compute G, or reduce G. > It reasons about its provability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g8j0a$m2mf$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641129 |
On 11/25/2025 8:38 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:36, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>>>>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >>>>> >>>>> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >>>>> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >>>>> incompleteness-proof shredder. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>> >>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea >>>> how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we >>>> just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple >>>> proof of its truth. >>>> >>>>> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system >>>>> would have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >>>>> They didn’t. >>>> >>>> I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics >>>> on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics >>>> freaks them out. >>>> >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. >>>> >>>>> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization >>>>> — it just gives it nicer types. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >>>> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence >>>> 00 ↔ 01 02 >>>> 01 G >>>> 02 ¬ 03 >>>> 03 Prov 04 >>>> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle >>>> >>>> Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck >>>> in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. >>>> >>>>> Montague built a translation function. >>>>> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >>>>> disappear. >>>>> It doesn’t. >>>>> Only your theory does that. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as >>>> Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit >>>> that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this >>>> system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. >>>> >>>> Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely >>>> not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. >>> >>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe) >>> >>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern: >>> >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried). >>> >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning >>> reduces to proof. >>> >>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition, >>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.” >>> >>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem >>> out of existence. >>> >>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel; >>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms. >>> Mathematics does not. >>> >> >> Do you now what an infinite loop is in programming? >> If a payroll calculation is stuck in an infinite >> loop is that a good thing? > > Peter, yes — I know what an infinite loop is in programming. > And that is exactly why your analogy misses the point. > > An infinite loop is a runtime problem in a program. > But Godel’s fixed point is not a program, and nobody is trying to “run” it. > > Mathematics does not evaluate G like code. > It does not simulate G, compute G, or reduce G. > It reasons about its provability. The evaluation of formal mathematical expressions is required to follow an evaluation sequence. This sentence is not true. It is not true about what? It is not true about being not true. It is not true about being not true about what? It is not true about being not true about being not true. Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! Here is the Liar Paradox formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory (you can Google it) LP := ~True(LP) // LP is defined as ~True(LP) This essentially specifies infinite recursion if you have any idea what that is. When evaluated LP becomes: ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...)))))) -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g639e$2pqn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641118 |
On 11/25/2025 6:09 PM, Python wrote: [...] > bachelor = unmarried The liar tells that to a woman he is hitting on at a bar. I am a bachelor. Well, tell that to his wife? ;^o [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125183534.522@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641116 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague > Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math > phobia. So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that simulations that are paused still exist and have future states. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5phf$o1v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641125 |
On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >> phobia. > > So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that > simulations that are paused still exist and have future > states. > I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. You already agreed that I am correct so this subject is closed. news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125190730.139@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641133 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>> phobia. >> >> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >> states. >> > > I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your own psychotic nonsense. > You already agreed that I am correct so this subject > is closed. Whaaat ... > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com > On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> The whole point is that D simulated by H > >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated > >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; it is completely uncontroversial. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5rft$1c37$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641147 |
On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>> phobia. >>> >>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>> states. >>> >> >> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. > > In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your > own psychotic nonsense. > >> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >> is closed. > > Whaaat ... > >> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>> >>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>> >>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > > But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. > Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, > which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. > > I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; > it is completely uncontroversial. > I really did figure out how to determine the correct halt status that the halting problem's counter-example input specifies to it decider. If no one here wants to acknowledge that besides Ben then you can all go to literal Hell as the bible says is the fate of all liars. I can show how this does prove that the halting problem itself is incorrect yet no one here gives a rat's ass. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125192037.887@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641152 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>> >>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>> >>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >> >> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >> >> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >> it is completely uncontroversial. > > I really did figure out how to determine the > correct halt status that the halting problem's > counter-example input specifies to it decider. You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed for it to prove a single damn thing: - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. - ... -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5sd3$1if1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641161 |
On 11/25/2025 9:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>> >>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>> >>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>> >>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>> >>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>> it is completely uncontroversial. >> >> I really did figure out how to determine the >> correct halt status that the halting problem's >> counter-example input specifies to it decider. > > You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed > for it to prove a single damn thing: > > - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to > be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. > It turned out that this is kosher. > - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 > to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. > > - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when > HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. > > - ... > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125211402.211@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641167 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed >> for it to prove a single damn thing: >> >> - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to >> be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. > > It turned out that this is kosher. No, it didn't, whatsoever. >> - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 >> to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. >> >> - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when >> HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <svCVQ.51186$liu8.12429@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #641167 |
On 11/25/25 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>> >>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>> >>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>> >>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >> >> You simply have /way/ too much fuckery in the code you developed >> for it to prove a single damn thing: >> >> - Static data stowed away in self-modifying code, which you declare to >> be kosher because it's like totally a Turing machine tape, man. >> > > It turned out that this is kosher. Just like a ham and cheese sandwich. Your just don't know what you are talking about, and prove it with you stupid lying claims. > >> - Root == 1 value returned to first instance of HHH, Root == 0 >> to subsequent ones, to change their behavior. >> >> - The gapingly imbecillic belief that a simulation ceases to exist when >> HHH stops calling DebugStep and returns. >> >> - ... >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10g6gs1$8fgp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641152 |
olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: > On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>> phobia. >>>> >>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>> states. >>>> >>> >>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >> >> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your >> own psychotic nonsense. >> >>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>> is closed. >> >> Whaaat ... >> >>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>> >>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>> >>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >> >> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >> >> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >> it is completely uncontroversial. > > I really did figure out how to determine the > correct halt status that the halting problem's > counter-example input specifies to it decider. The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting problem. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g75j3$gf3b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641197 |
On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>> phobia. >>>>> >>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>> states. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>> >>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your >>> own psychotic nonsense. >>> >>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>> is closed. >>> >>> Whaaat ... >>> >>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>> >>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>> >>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>> >>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>> >>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>> it is completely uncontroversial. >> >> I really did figure out how to determine the >> correct halt status that the halting problem's >> counter-example input specifies to it decider. > > The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine > specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the > decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting > problem. > That is inaccurate. The halting problem is about behaviors that finite string machine description inputs specify. First you must understand this: *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* Then you can understand this: The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it requires a halt decider to report on anything besides what its actual input actually specifies. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10g75rt$fhqt$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641212 |
On 11/26/2025 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>> >>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>> states. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>> >>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on >>>> your >>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>> >>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>> is closed. >>>> >>>> Whaaat ... >>>> >>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>> >>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>> >>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>> >>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >> >> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >> problem. >> > > That is inaccurate. The halting problem is about Whether a Turing machine exists that can determine whether any arbitrary Turing machine when given any arbitrary input will halt when executed directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c3FVQ.45896$5c64.28168@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #641212 |
On 11/26/25 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>> >>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>> states. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>> >>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on >>>> your >>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>> >>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>> is closed. >>>> >>>> Whaaat ... >>>> >>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>> >>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>> >>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>> >>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >> >> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >> problem. >> > > That is inaccurate. The halting problem is about > behaviors that finite string machine description > inputs specify. > > First you must understand this: > *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* > *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* > *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* > *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* Then why does DD() halt? It seems your definition of "non-halting" is just a lie. > > Then you can understand this: > The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it > requires a halt decider to report on anything > besides what its actual input actually specifies. > No, you are just showing that you are flat out wrong thinking you can change the meaning of the words. That is the mark of a pathological liar. The input specifies the behavior of the program when it is run, which is halt. You are so stupid you can't understand that meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8hdi$11k1u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641217 |
On 11/26/2025 7:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/26/25 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17:
>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague
>>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math
>>>>>>>> phobia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that
>>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future
>>>>>>> states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on
>>>>> your
>>>>> own psychotic nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject
>>>>>> is closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whaaat ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H
>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated
>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is.
>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns,
>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this;
>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial.
>>>>
>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the
>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's
>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider.
>>>
>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine
>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the
>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting
>>> problem.
>>>
>>
>> That is inaccurate. The halting problem is about
>> behaviors that finite string machine description
>> inputs specify.
>>
>> First you must understand this:
>> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*
>> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*
>> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*
>> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*
>
> Then why does DD() halt?
>
> It seems your definition of "non-halting" is just a lie.
>
>>
>> Then you can understand this:
>> The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it
>> requires a halt decider to report on anything
>> besides what its actual input actually specifies.
>>
>
> No, you are just showing that you are flat out wrong thinking you can
> change the meaning of the words.
>
> That is the mark of a pathological liar.
>
> The input specifies the behavior of the program when it is run, which is
> halt.
I broke down HHH and DD into a fuzzer. Wrt, if HHH(DD) returns non-zero
it goes into an infinite GOTO loop. We can say this is non-halting. If
HHH(DD) returns zero, DD halts.
___________________________
int DD()
{
10: int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
20: if (Halt_Status)
30: HERE: goto HERE;
40: return Halt_Status;
}
___________________________
DD can not halt as well. It depends on the output from HHH.
___________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "HHH"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
20 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
30 P0 = P0 + 1
40 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
50 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000 REM FIN
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
___________________________
Or an automated version:
____________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "ct_dr_fuzz lol. ;^)"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 REM Fuzzer... ;^)
20 A$ = "NOPE!"
30 IF RND(1) < .5 THEN A$ = "YES"
100 REM INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
110 PRINT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
200 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
300 P0 = P0 + 1
400 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
500 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000 REM FIN
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
____________________________
> You are so stupid you can't understand that meaning.
Strange.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10g8v8u$16j67$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641212 |
olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: > On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>> >>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>> states. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>> >>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on >>>> your >>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>> >>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>> is closed. >>>> >>>> Whaaat ... >>>> >>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>> >>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>> >>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>> >>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >> >> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >> problem. > > That is inaccurate. No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g9q33$1gvv5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641296 |
On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>>> states. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on >>>>> your >>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>> >>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>> is closed. >>>>> >>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>> >>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>> >>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>> >>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>> >>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >>> problem. >> >> That is inaccurate. > > No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem > but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations > restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. > It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately self-contradictory specification. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Zj_VQ.76648$YX2e.45125@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #641312 |
On 11/27/25 10:17 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>>>> states. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused >>>>>> on your >>>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>>> is closed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>>> >>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>>> >>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>>> >>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >>>> problem. >>> >>> That is inaccurate. >> >> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem >> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations >> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. >> > > It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately > self-contradictory specification. > What is "self-contradictory" about the actual specification. Only when you convert the objectively specified definitions to subjective criteria do you get the problems, which is why the specifications are given objectively. Of course, your idea of truth can't handle it being objective, so none of it makes sense to you, as you just can't handle what truth actually is, because you are just a pathological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10gbmgj$27v3o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641312 |
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17: > On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>>>> states. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused >>>>>> on your >>>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>>> is closed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>>> >>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>>> >>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>>> >>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >>>> problem. >>> >>> That is inaccurate. >> >> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem >> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations >> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. >> > > It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately > self-contradictory specification. If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point to say "specifies to its decider". If D specifies a halting behaviour it specifies it both to its normal execution environment and to every decider, otherwise it specifies non-halting behaviour both to its normal execution environment and its decider. If it specifies one behaviour to one and a diffetent behaviour to the other then it is ambiguous. Becauyse that is what the words mean. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web