Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #644951 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-01 16:19 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-05-02 11:02 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 45 — 7 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.
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
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 16:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? |
| Message-ID | <10t35dm$1nc25$1@dont-email.me> |
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. > so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, > > yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? > > thing is: why do i care??? > > what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually > unlock??? > > can we _do_ anything more it with it??? > > cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ > limitations, > > and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. > > why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ limitations??? > -- 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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 14:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t36vv$1mil2$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644951 |
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_ ??? can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this understanding??? > >> so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, >> >> yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >> >> thing is: why do i care??? >> >> what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >> unlock??? >> >> can we _do_ anything more it with it??? >> >> cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >> limitations, >> >> and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. >> >> why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ limitations??? >> > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 16:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t37dc$1nsqo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644952 |
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. > 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. >> >>> so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, >>> >>> yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>> >>> thing is: why do i care??? >>> >>> what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>> unlock??? >>> >>> can we _do_ anything more it with it??? >>> >>> cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >>> limitations, >>> >>> and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. >>> >>> why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ limitations??? >>> >> > -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3c2n$1onjk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644953 |
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??? > >> 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... > >>> >>>> so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, >>>> >>>> yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>>> >>>> thing is: why do i care??? >>>> >>>> what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>>> unlock??? >>>> >>>> can we _do_ anything more it with it??? >>>> >>>> cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >>>> limitations, >>>> >>>> and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. >>>> >>>> why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ >>>> limitations??? >>>> >>> >> > > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 18:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t3cgi$1pad5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644955 |
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 >> >>> 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? 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. >> >>>> >>>>> so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, >>>>> >>>>> yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>>>> >>>>> thing is: why do i care??? >>>>> >>>>> what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>>>> unlock??? >>>>> >>>>> can we _do_ anything more it with it??? >>>>> >>>>> cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >>>>> limitations, >>>>> >>>>> and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. >>>>> >>>>> why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ >>>>> limitations??? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3cst$1onjk$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644956 |
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 >>> >>>> 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? > > 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 > >>> >>>>> >>>>>> so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, >>>>>> >>>>>> yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>>>>> >>>>>> thing is: why do i care??? >>>>>> >>>>>> what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>>>>> unlock??? >>>>>> >>>>>> can we _do_ anything more it with it??? >>>>>> >>>>>> cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the >>>>>> _same_ limitations, >>>>>> >>>>>> and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. >>>>>> >>>>>> why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ >>>>>> limitations??? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 18:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t3de4$1pj6v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644957 |
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? >> >> 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? >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thing is: why do i care??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding >>>>>>> actually unlock??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> can we _do_ anything more it with it??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the >>>>>>> _same_ limitations, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ >>>>>>> limitations??? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 17:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3hr1$1onjk$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644958 |
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. > >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thing is: why do i care??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding >>>>>>>> actually unlock??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> can we _do_ anything more it with it??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the >>>>>>>> _same_ limitations, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ >>>>>>>> limitations??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 20:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t3jmv$1r64g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644959 |
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. -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 20:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3q4s$1rl0o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644960 |
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... in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 22:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t3sl0$1tb81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644963 |
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? > > in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? > -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 01:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t4c5q$1rl0o$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644967 |
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 i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷 at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem being unsolvable... i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem _more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have... idk if this means: - some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation fundamentally inexpressible - OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us - OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable computations to exist - OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment - OR some combination of the above i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago, and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners > >> >> in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? >> > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 07:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t4rlr$25qek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644970 |
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 of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression "unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent" > i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷 > > at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. instead > of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem being > unsolvable... > YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP > i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem _more > solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to prove > that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed semantic > proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have... > > idk if this means: > - some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation > fundamentally inexpressible > - OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable computations > and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us > - OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable > computations to exist > - OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment > - OR some combination of the above > > i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago, > and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners > >> >>> >>> in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? >>> >> > -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t5i4u$2c8h4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644973 |
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? > of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because > it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression > "unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it > itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent" > >> i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷 >> >> at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. instead >> of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem being >> unsolvable... >> > > YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP > >> i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem >> _more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to >> prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed >> semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have... >> >> idk if this means: >> - some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation >> fundamentally inexpressible >> - OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable computations >> and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us >> - OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable >> computations to exist >> - OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment >> - OR some combination of the above >> >> i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago, >> and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners >> >>> >>>> >>>> in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? >>>> >>> >> > > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 14:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t5kfv$2dcns$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644983 |
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? > IT IS FUCKING INCOHERENT THUS CAN ONLY BE REJECTED AS INCORRECT. >> of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because >> it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression >> "unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it >> itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent" >> >>> i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷 >>> >>> at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. >>> instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem >>> being unsolvable... >>> >> >> YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP >> >>> i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem >>> _more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to >>> prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed >>> semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have... >>> >>> idk if this means: >>> - some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation >>> fundamentally inexpressible >>> - OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable >>> computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us >>> - OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable >>> computations to exist >>> - OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment >>> - OR some combination of the above >>> >>> i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago, >>> and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 15:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t5lng$2dpu2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644983 |
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? > THERE ARE NO FINITE STRING TRANSFORMATION RULES FROM THE INPUT TO A HALT DECIDER TO THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF AN INPUT THAT DOES THE OPPOSITE OF WHATEVER IT REPORTS. Turing should have figured out that such an input in semantically invalid in less than five minutes. >> of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because >> it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression >> "unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it >> itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent" >> >>> i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷 >>> >>> at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. >>> instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem >>> being unsolvable... >>> >> >> YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP >> >>> i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem >>> _more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to >>> prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed >>> semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have... >>> >>> idk if this means: >>> - some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation >>> fundamentally inexpressible >>> - OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable >>> computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us >>> - OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable >>> computations to exist >>> - OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment >>> - OR some combination of the above >>> >>> i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago, >>> and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t5mn6$2c8h4$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644986 |
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? >> > > THERE ARE NO FINITE STRING TRANSFORMATION RULES > FROM THE INPUT TO A HALT DECIDER TO THE ACTUAL > BEHAVIOR OF AN INPUT THAT DOES THE OPPOSITE OF > WHATEVER IT REPORTS. > > Turing should have figured out that such an input > in semantically invalid in less than five minutes. that _is_ literally his position polcott: turing asserts that the problem is fundamentally _unsolvable_ (in his words _uncomputable_) due to the semantic incoherence (his words contradiction) of trying to return an answer to literally such an input, bro... that has been the position of the theory of computing since turing wrote literally the _first_ paper /on computable numbers/ i have no idea wtf ur going on about, but it seems to me that ur actually trying to rebel against the consensus by asserting it's correctness, and that is just bizarre polcott > >>> of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because >>> it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression >>> "unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it >>> itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent" >>> >>>> i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷 >>>> >>>> at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. >>>> instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem >>>> being unsolvable... >>>> >>> >>> YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP yet we still know DD halts 🤷🤷🤷 >>> >>>> i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem >>>> _more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to >>>> prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed >>>> semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have... >>>> >>>> idk if this means: >>>> - some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable >>>> computation fundamentally inexpressible >>>> - OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable >>>> computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us >>>> - OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable >>>> computations to exist >>>> - OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment >>>> - OR some combination of the above >>>> >>>> i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks >>>> ago, and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t5o64$2egrm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644988 |
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? -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t6efr$2k0ij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644990 |
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, 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. 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. -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 23:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t6h8r$2kmb8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644991 |
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. > 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. > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web