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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t6ijs$2k0ij$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644995 |
On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't solvable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is undecidable due to the form of the input itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about >>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies >>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial >>>>>>>>>>>>> measures. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this understanding??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains with undecidable input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how this is progress >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously don't >>>>>>>>>>>> get a decision on whether DD halts or not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one >>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of >>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an >>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem... >>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a "unsolved >>>>>>>> problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever written >>>>>>>> classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just like u seem >>>>>>>> to think now >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only >>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root >>>>>> >>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve: >>>>>> >>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent? >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>> >>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>> >>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>> >> >> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want, >> > > It is an accurate analogy. i can't agree > >> but asking whether a turing machine halts or not is not a category >> error. any real turing machine either belongs to the set of halting >> machines or it doesn't. that's a truth by the law of excluded middle, >> and if u don't agree then ur just wrong. >> > > It never has been about halting machines it > has always been about semantic properties of > finite strings. ...where the finite string encodes a turing machine, and the semantic property is in regards to the behavior of that encoded machine... > >> 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 | 2026-05-03 08:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t7kcs$2uha2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644996 |
On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't solvable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is undecidable due to the form of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this understanding??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains with undecidable input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how this is progress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get a decision on whether DD halts or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one >>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of >>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an >>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem... >>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a "unsolved >>>>>>>>> problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever written >>>>>>>>> classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just like u >>>>>>>>> seem to think now >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only >>>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>> >>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>> >>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>> >>> >>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want, >>> >> >> It is an accurate analogy. > > i can't agree > All incorrect questions are the same in that they are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers. >> >>> but asking whether a turing machine halts or not is not a category >>> error. any real turing machine either belongs to the set of halting >>> machines or it doesn't. that's a truth by the law of excluded middle, >>> and if u don't agree then ur just wrong. >>> >> >> It never has been about halting machines it >> has always been about semantic properties of >> finite strings. > > ...where the finite string encodes a turing machine, One indirect reference away from the machine itself. > and the semantic > property is in regards to the behavior of that encoded machine... > The semantic property is the behavior that the finite string specifies. It is common knowledge across all of proof theoretic semantics that proofs of inputs must be finite or input is invalid. >> >>> and in fact we already /know/ DD belongs to the set of halting >>> machines, something i've seen you agree to just a few months ago >>> >>> u just keep not responding to that agreed fact, and that does not >>> bode well for whatever it is ur tryin to peddle in the moment. >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. This required establishing a new foundation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-04 09:21 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <10t9dso$3f2gg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645001 |
On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote: > On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't solvable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is undecidable due to the form of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this understanding??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem remains with undecidable input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how this is progress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get a decision on whether DD halts or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one >>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of >>>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an >>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem... >>>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a "unsolved >>>>>>>>>> problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever written >>>>>>>>>> classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just like u >>>>>>>>>> seem to think now >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only >>>>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>> >>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>> >>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>> >>>> >>>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want, >>>> >>> >>> It is an accurate analogy. >> >> i can't agree > All incorrect questions are the same in that they > are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers. There is a correct answer to every question. If the question is incorrect a correct answer says that the qestion is incorrect and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question, perhaps proposing a correction. Sometimes it is useful to guess the intended question and to answer that. >>> >>>> but asking whether a turing machine halts or not is not a category >>>> error. any real turing machine either belongs to the set of halting >>>> machines or it doesn't. that's a truth by the law of excluded >>>> middle, and if u don't agree then ur just wrong. >>>> >>> >>> It never has been about halting machines it >>> has always been about semantic properties of >>> finite strings. >> >> ...where the finite string encodes a turing machine, > > One indirect reference away from the machine itself. > >> Â and the semantic property is in regards to the behavior of that >> encoded machine... >> > > The semantic property is the behavior that the finite > string specifies. It is common knowledge across all > of proof theoretic semantics that proofs of inputs must > be finite or input is invalid. > >>> >>>> and in fact we already /know/ DD belongs to the set of halting >>>> machines, something i've seen you agree to just a few months ago >>>> >>>> u just keep not responding to that agreed fact, and that does not >>>> bode well for whatever it is ur tryin to peddle in the moment. >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-04 10:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10tae1e$3ovkb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645009 |
On 5/4/2026 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote: >> On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is undecidable due to the form of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this understanding??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem remains with undecidable input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how this is progress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get a decision on whether DD halts or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem... >>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a "unsolved >>>>>>>>>>> problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever >>>>>>>>>>> written classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just >>>>>>>>>>> like u seem to think now >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only >>>>>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want, >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is an accurate analogy. >>> >>> i can't agree > >> All incorrect questions are the same in that they >> are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers. > > There is a correct answer to every question. WHAT TIME IS IT (YES OR NO) ??? > If the question is > incorrect a correct answer says that the qestion is incorrect Forced choice. The answer is restricted to YES/NO and must also be time of day. > and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question, Type mismatch error. > perhaps proposing a correction. The universal truth predicate simply rejects as BAD INPUT. > Sometimes it is useful to guess Not allowed. Boolean functions are restricted to Boolean answers. > the intended question and to answer that. > How do you get a Boolean function Turing Machine halt decider to return "this input is bad, are you stupid?" >>>> >>>>> but asking whether a turing machine halts or not is not a category >>>>> error. any real turing machine either belongs to the set of halting >>>>> machines or it doesn't. that's a truth by the law of excluded >>>>> middle, and if u don't agree then ur just wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It never has been about halting machines it >>>> has always been about semantic properties of >>>> finite strings. >>> >>> ...where the finite string encodes a turing machine, >> >> One indirect reference away from the machine itself. >> >>> Â and the semantic property is in regards to the behavior of that >>> encoded machine... >>> >> >> The semantic property is the behavior that the finite >> string specifies. It is common knowledge across all >> of proof theoretic semantics that proofs of inputs must >> be finite or input is invalid. >> >>>> >>>>> and in fact we already /know/ DD belongs to the set of halting >>>>> machines, something i've seen you agree to just a few months ago >>>>> >>>>> u just keep not responding to that agreed fact, and that does not >>>>> bode well for whatever it is ur tryin to peddle in the moment. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. This required establishing a new foundation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-05 11:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <10tcb06$9tin$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645013 |
On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2026 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is undecidable due to the form of the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form with this understanding???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem remains with undecidable input...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see how this is progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get a decision on whether DD halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem" within computing, in the first place!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> written classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just
>>>>>>>>>>>> like u seem to think now
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only
>>>>>>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an accurate analogy.
>>>>
>>>> i can't agree
>>
>>> All incorrect questions are the same in that they
>>> are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers.
>>
>> There is a correct answer to every question.
>
> WHAT TIME IS IT (YES OR NO) ???
"Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point
out that the question is badly formed is correct, too. If you are
designing a device that should answer questions then the answer
"Error: invalid user" could be correct.
>> If the question is
>> incorrect a correct answer says that the qestion is incorrect
>
> Forced choice. The answer is restricted to YES/NO and must
> also be time of day.
Depends on how it is forced. The question does not force anything.
With sufficient forcing the correctness is not relevant.
>> and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question,
>
> Type mismatch error.
Perhaps with more details.
>> perhaps proposing a correction.
>
> The universal truth predicate simply rejects as BAD INPUT.
A predicate cannot reject "as" anything. Its range is restricted to
{false, true}.
>> Sometimes it is useful to guess
>
> Not allowed. Boolean functions are restricted to Boolean answers.
That does not restrict verbal answers to verbal questions.
>> the intended question and to answer that.
> How do you get a Boolean function Turing Machine
> halt decider to return "this input is bad, are you stupid?"
Usually the word "decider" means a Turing machine that always halts
and accepts if the input string is in the set of aceptable strings.
If the specification specifies anything else then the specified
machine is not a decider.
If you want a Turing machine that gives more informatino than just
one bit you may aither have multiple accept states or reject states
or both, or you can put output information to the tape, or use the
final position of the tape head, or you can use any combination of
these.
For the situation asked about you could use one reject state
for valid non-halting input and another for erroneous input (or
several others for different kinds of input error).
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-06 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10tfh6k$17qtu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645021 |
On 5/6/2026 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 05/05/2026 19:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2026 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2026 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular input is undecidable due to the form
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input itself...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness relates as neither are even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form with this understanding???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem remains with undecidable input...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing to see how this is progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsolvable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously don't get a decision on whether DD halts or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem" within computing, in the first place!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written classified the halting problem as unsolvable...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just like u seem to think now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is an accurate analogy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i can't agree
>>>>>
>>>>>> All incorrect questions are the same in that they
>>>>>> are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a correct answer to every question.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT TIME IS IT (YES OR NO) ???
>>>
>>> "Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point
>>
>> It is a decision problem thus restricted to (YES or NO).
>
> No, it is not. It is a question. Though the difference is not
> important. A proof that a problem is unsovable, if that proof
> can be constructed, is a correct solution to a problem.
>
>> Halts/Does not Halt does not allow {Bad input} as an answer.
>
> It does not prevent it, either. If the problem specification restricts
> the input then the solution is allowed to give any answer or none if
> the input violates the specified restriction. In case of the halting
> problem that means that if the input does not describe a Turing and
> an input to that machine then a halting decider is allowed to say
> "halts", is allowed to say "does not halt", is allowed to say something
> else, and is allowed to run forever.
>
>> Thus when the input is Bad the question itself is incorrect.
>
> If the input to a halt decider describes a Turing machine and an input
> to it then either that Turing machine either halts ot does not halt and
> a halting decider is required to truthfully tell whether it halts.
>
You are not going to understand what the correct answer is
outside of the paradigm of proof theoretic semantics.
The notion that the body of knowledge expressed as
language is a set of relations between finite strings
fits perfectly within the PTS foundation.
Undecidability is the lack of coherent relations between
a finite set of finite strings.
--
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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-07 10:09 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <10thdqn$1r2n6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645027 |
On 06/05/2026 16:54, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2026 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 05/05/2026 19:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2026 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2026 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular input is undecidable due to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of the input itself...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness relates as neither are even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form with this understanding???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem remains with undecidable input...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing to see how this is progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsolvable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously don't get a decision on whether DD halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem" within computing, in the first place!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written classified the halting problem as unsolvable...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just like u seem to think now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the part i'd like to solve:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value
>>>>>>>>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an accurate analogy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i can't agree
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All incorrect questions are the same in that they
>>>>>>> are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a correct answer to every question.
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT TIME IS IT (YES OR NO) ???
>>>>
>>>> "Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point
>>>
>>> It is a decision problem thus restricted to (YES or NO).
>>
>> No, it is not. It is a question. Though the difference is not
>> important. A proof that a problem is unsovable, if that proof
>> can be constructed, is a correct solution to a problem.
>>
>>> Halts/Does not Halt does not allow {Bad input} as an answer.
>>
>> It does not prevent it, either. If the problem specification restricts
>> the input then the solution is allowed to give any answer or none if
>> the input violates the specified restriction. In case of the halting
>> problem that means that if the input does not describe a Turing and
>> an input to that machine then a halting decider is allowed to say
>> "halts", is allowed to say "does not halt", is allowed to say
>> something else, and is allowed to run forever.
>>
>>> Thus when the input is Bad the question itself is incorrect.
>>
>> If the input to a halt decider describes a Turing machine and an input
>> to it then either that Turing machine either halts ot does not halt and
>> a halting decider is required to truthfully tell whether it halts.
>
> You are not going to understand what the correct answer is
> outside of the paradigm of proof theoretic semantics.
Of course I do: a correct answer is an answer that I reagard as correct.
I needn't care ahat the correct answeer is inside of the paradigm of
proof theoretic semantics.
> The notion that the body of knowledge expressed as
> language is a set of relations between finite strings
> fits perfectly within the PTS foundation.
Irrelevant to your quesstion. And the notion does not fit to the usual
understanding of "the body of knowledge" is. And the notion does not
help people to satisfy their needs.
> Undecidability is the lack of coherent relations between
> a finite set of finite strings.
An undecidability is a statement about relations between finte strings.
Some undecidabilities can be proven, some others disproven, but
some are undecidable.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-14 02:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10u43qf$1agu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644959 |
On 5/1/2026 5:51 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. > >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Olcott likes the little boys like the catholics, or the little girls like the mormons? See what his halt decider says...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3m9l$1rq4m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644957 |
On 5/1/2026 4:27 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 > >>>> >>>>> 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? I warned you about it, dart... olcott is an odd one for sure, in very sick ways... Don't ruin your mind conversing with it? [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 20:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3q75$1rl0o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644961 |
On 5/1/26 7:07 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/1/2026 4:27 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 >> >>>>> >>>>>> 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? > > I warned you about it, dart... olcott is an odd one for sure, in very > sick ways... Don't ruin your mind conversing with it? > > > [...] i already have the most ruined mind on useet -- why are we god? let's end war 🙃
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3q9m$1rl0p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644961 |
On 5/1/26 7:07 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/1/2026 4:27 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 >> >>>>> >>>>>> 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? > > I warned you about it, dart... olcott is an odd one for sure, in very > sick ways... Don't ruin your mind conversing with it? > > > [...] i already have the most ruined mind on usenet, how could it get worse? -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 20:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t3qj3$1rl0o$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644961 |
On 5/1/26 7:07 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/1/2026 4:27 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 >> >>>>> >>>>>> 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? > > I warned you about it, dart... olcott is an odd one for sure, in very > sick ways... Don't ruin your mind conversing with it? > > > [...] i already have the most ruined mind on usenet, how could it get worse? -- why are we god? let's end war 🙃
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 22:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <110f8lh$1np5k$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644955 |
On 02/05/2026 00:13, dart200 wrote: >>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this >>> understanding??? >>> Yes. Very much so. We have the ability to avoid wasting our time on intermediate experiences. >> An infallible system of truth can be created on this >> basis. > > what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem remains with > undecidable input... The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for the rest and the previous! I think Olcott is awesome. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 17:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <110fc9f$1pdts$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645393 |
On 6/11/2026 4:17 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 02/05/2026 00:13, dart200 wrote: >>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this >>>> understanding??? >>>> > > Yes. Very much so. We have the ability to avoid wasting our time on > intermediate experiences. > >>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>> basis. >> >> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem remains with >> undecidable input... > > The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels > of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of > times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the > others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for > the rest and the previous! > > I think Olcott is awesome. > I am assuming that this is sarcasm, none-the-less I do greatly respect you. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-12 15:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <110h527$286in$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645396 |
On 11/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2026 4:17 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels >> of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of >> times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the >> others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for >> the rest and the previous! >> >> I think Olcott is awesome. >> > > I am assuming that this is sarcasm, none-the-less > I do greatly respect you. > I honestly meant it. I appreciate you as I've said before. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-12 11:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <110hal3$2aagv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645398 |
On 6/12/2026 9:28 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 11/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2026 4:17 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > >>> The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels >>> of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of >>> times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the >>> others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for >>> the rest and the previous! >>> >>> I think Olcott is awesome. >>> >> >> I am assuming that this is sarcasm, none-the-less >> I do greatly respect you. >> > > I honestly meant it. I appreciate you as I've said before. > So that would be a total of one person that feels that way out of many hundreds across dozens of forums. Eric Hehner PhD and I also hold very similar views on the Halting Problem. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 20:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sdidnfQ4QM2B62j0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #644952 |
On 05/01/2026 02:46 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_ ??? > > 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??? >>> >> > That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time", the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations, not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times, like "it'll happen when it happens". Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 07:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10t4qt6$25jf2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644968 |
On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 05/01/2026 02:46 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_ ??? >> >> 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??? >>>> >>> >> > > That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time", > the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations, > not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times, > like "it'll happen when it happens". > > Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas. > > The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?" is an incorrect question because it is a type mismatch error. It turns out that all of undecidability has only been a misconception. It has only ever actually been: (a) Incorrect questions. (b) Outside of the body of knowledge. -- 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 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t5hid$2c8h4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644971 |
On 5/2/26 5:32 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 05/01/2026 02:46 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_ ??? >>> >>> 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??? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time", >> the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations, >> not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times, >> like "it'll happen when it happens". >> >> Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas. >> >> > > The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?" > is an incorrect question because it is a type > mismatch error. > > It turns out that all of undecidability has only > been a misconception. It has only ever actually been: > (a) Incorrect questions. > (b) Outside of the body of knowledge. > but we know DD halts so it's obliviously not "outside the body of knowledge", it's just outside what HHH can coherent return... -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-02 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10t5i2s$2c8h3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644971 |
On 5/2/26 5:32 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 05/01/2026 02:46 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_ ??? >>> >>> 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??? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time", >> the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations, >> not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times, >> like "it'll happen when it happens". >> >> Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas. >> >> > > The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?" > is an incorrect question because it is a type > mismatch error. > > It turns out that all of undecidability has only > been a misconception. It has only ever actually been: > (a) Incorrect questions. > (b) Outside of the body of knowledge. > but we know DD halts so it's obviously not outside "the body of knowledge", it's just outside the knowledge that HHH itself can coherently return... -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ the lil crank that could
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web