Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #644766 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-04-20 11:57 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-06-30 06:54 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 410 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 11:57 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-21 09:41 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 08:33 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 10:19 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 02:48 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 11:19 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 08:17 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-23 10:06 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-23 08:49 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-24 09:33 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-04-22 17:06 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 20:21 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-04-24 00:19 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 21:12 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 21:14 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 18:25 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 18:29 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-20 17:50 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:32 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-27 07:53 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:19 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 09:50 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:39 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 21:52 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 09:14 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:29 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 11:05 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 13:16 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:29 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 14:08 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 13:33 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 14:47 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 14:02 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 15:06 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 14:58 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:10 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 15:18 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:39 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 16:25 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 17:38 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:03 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 18:36 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:45 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:37 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 19:01 -0600
The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 20:19 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 19:54 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:17 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 20:31 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:42 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 20:49 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 22:06 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 15:18 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 16:45 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 15:56 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:04 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:34 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:57 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:02 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:10 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:17 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:49 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 00:01 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:20 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 07:55 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 09:40 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:33 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:01 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:10 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:20 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:34 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:57 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:06 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:40 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:50 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 13:23 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:47 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:11 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:28 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:50 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 15:10 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 17:43 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 17:09 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 19:05 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 18:39 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 20:01 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 19:23 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 21:03 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 00:02 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 08:45 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:48 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:17 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:12 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:21 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:38 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:46 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:43 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 15:22 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:11 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:49 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:13 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:59 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:36 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:42 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:16 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:58 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:15 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:21 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:35 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:54 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:09 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:19 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:44 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:52 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:23 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:31 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:42 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-01 19:18 +0000
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:45 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:51 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:56 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:02 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:05 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 13:31 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:13 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:29 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:37 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:50 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:57 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:04 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 17:15 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 18:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:36 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 21:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:00 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:17 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:18 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:29 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:34 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:43 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:59 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 00:01 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:03 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:57 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:51 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 12:04 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 11:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 12:55 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 13:13 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:22 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:33 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 15:52 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 15:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:54 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:12 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:23 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:40 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:13 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:32 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:35 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:47 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:53 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:49 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 20:03 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:22 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:36 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:50 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:10 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:10 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:18 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:36 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:40 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:47 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 17:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 16:51 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:58 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:05 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:19 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:37 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:43 -0400
The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:11 -0500
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 23:23 -0400
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:58 +0300
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:16 -0500
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:07 +0300
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:18 -0500
Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:45 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:48 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:58 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:07 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:11 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:27 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:48 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:19 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 11:04 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:46 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:55 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:24 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:30 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:23 -0700
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 11:57 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:55 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:23 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 11:08 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:10 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:11 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:02 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:18 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Brenden Jafarov <rnarnj@rbn.ru> - 2026-07-04 12:47 +0000
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:43 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:52 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:04 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:28 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:27 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:45 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:53 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:35 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 16:59 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:57 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:55 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:01 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:10 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:37 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:33 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:59 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:25 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 11:10 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:08 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:12 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:00 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:03 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:55 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:38 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:09 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:28 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 11:15 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:41 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:38 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 09:40 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:00 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:39 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:14 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:37 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:32 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 09:37 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:06 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:03 +0300
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 21:31 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:17 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:04 -0400
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:11 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 16:56 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:06 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:08 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:42 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:51 -0600
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:07 -0500
Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:26 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:18 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:58 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:24 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:16 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:55 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:49 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:28 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:38 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:35 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:20 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:37 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:13 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 14:32 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:08 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:06 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:07 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:11 -0400
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 16:01 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:25 +0300
Terms-of-the-art are Liars that violate the preexisting order of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:54 -0500
Re: Terms-of-the-art are Liars that violate the preexisting order of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:22 +0300
Re: Terms-of-the-art are Liars that violate the preexisting order of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:32 -0500
Re: Terms-of-the-art are Liars that violate the preexisting order of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 11:25 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:11 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:27 +0300
Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 16:12 -0500
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 17:30 -0400
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-05 14:59 +0100
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 11:23 -0500
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 10:19 -0400
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 12:39 -0400
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 13:09 -0700
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:46 +0300
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:39 -0500
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:38 +0300
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:40 -0500
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 11:42 +0300
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 14:07 -0700
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:38 +0300
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-07-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:01 -0500
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 15:36 -0700
Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 11:33 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:17 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:47 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 10:07 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 11:58 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 11:27 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:45 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 11:56 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 13:12 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 12:54 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 14:03 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 14:08 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 15:20 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 15:13 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:00 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 16:18 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:41 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 16:53 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:58 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 17:39 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 19:01 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 19:06 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:52 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:47 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:45 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:44 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:04 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-29 10:50 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:01 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-26 20:01 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 15:54 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-26 20:16 -0400
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-27 12:30 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 09:53 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-27 19:15 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 15:10 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-27 21:03 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 16:57 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 10:34 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:18 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 09:37 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 09:17 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-30 10:55 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 09:54 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 10:47 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 11:01 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 14:35 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 12:54 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 15:36 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 13:14 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 15:41 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:47 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-02 11:04 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 07:36 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-03 10:56 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 10:22 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 06:14 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 12:04 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:14 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-27 22:01 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 17:22 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 11:10 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:30 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 10:11 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 10:35 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-29 14:27 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 16:23 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:50 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 15:35 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-01 21:17 +0200
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 12:34 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 14:38 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-01 22:10 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-02 16:26 +0200
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-02 18:47 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:06 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-06 21:37 +0200
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 13:48 -0600
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 12:59 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 16:10 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-07 01:12 +0000
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-04 16:31 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-05 15:52 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-05 17:31 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 11:33 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 12:56 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 15:25 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 14:30 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 16:45 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 15:15 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 17:55 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:16 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 11:54 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:58 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:49 -0500
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 12:00 +0300
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-06 14:19 +0100
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 20:56 -0700
Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 06:54 +0100
Page 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-06 10:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112ghh7$232a3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646227 |
On 7/6/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 04/07/2026 19:58, olcott wrote: >> On 7/4/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 04/07/2026 05:37, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 9:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 8:58 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that >>>>>>>>>>>>> is by definition a mapping. >>>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a >>>>>>>>>>> mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >>>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute >>>>>>> The mathematical halting function: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When you actually implement this concretely >>>>> >>>>> We find that it is not possible, as Linz and others have proved. >>>> >>>> Impossible requirements are incorrect requirements. >>> >>> There is no well known meaning of "incorrect requirements". >> >> I just established the meaning of incorrect requirements >> as any requirement that requires the logically impossible. > > That is insufficient to make the expression "incorrect requirements" > meaningful in Common Language or well known. > In other words if the requirement is to compute the square root of the actual dead flesh of a dead chicken you would not reject this out-of hand? -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-08 10:48 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112kvci$3ej53$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646252 |
On 06/07/2026 18:27, olcott wrote: > On 7/6/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 04/07/2026 19:58, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2026 05:37, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 8:58 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is by definition a mapping. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a >>>>>>>>>>>> mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >>>>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute >>>>>>>> The mathematical halting function: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you actually implement this concretely >>>>>> >>>>>> We find that it is not possible, as Linz and others have proved. >>>>> >>>>> Impossible requirements are incorrect requirements. >>>> >>>> There is no well known meaning of "incorrect requirements". >>> >>> I just established the meaning of incorrect requirements >>> as any requirement that requires the logically impossible. >> >> That is insufficient to make the expression "incorrect requirements" >> meaningful in Common Language or well known. > > In other words if the requirement is to compute the square > root of the actual dead flesh of a dead chicken you would > not reject this out-of hand? Depends on what yuo count as rejection. I don't think I would try to meet that requirement. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-08 22:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112n405$3krh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646352 |
On 7/8/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 06/07/2026 18:27, olcott wrote: >> On 7/6/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 04/07/2026 19:58, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/2026 05:37, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 8:58 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is by definition a mapping. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a >>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >>>>>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute >>>>>>>>> The mathematical halting function: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When you actually implement this concretely >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We find that it is not possible, as Linz and others have proved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Impossible requirements are incorrect requirements. >>>>> >>>>> There is no well known meaning of "incorrect requirements". >>>> >>>> I just established the meaning of incorrect requirements >>>> as any requirement that requires the logically impossible. >>> >>> That is insufficient to make the expression "incorrect requirements" >>> meaningful in Common Language or well known. >> >> In other words if the requirement is to compute the square >> root of the actual dead flesh of a dead chicken you would >> not reject this out-of hand? > > Depends on what yuo count as rejection. I don't think I would > try to meet that requirement. > Incorrect decision problem requirements. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 11:04 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112nklm$800b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646375 |
On 09/07/2026 06:19, olcott wrote: > On 7/8/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 06/07/2026 18:27, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/6/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2026 19:58, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/2026 05:37, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 8:58 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is by definition a mapping. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute >>>>>>>>>> The mathematical halting function: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When you actually implement this concretely >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We find that it is not possible, as Linz and others have proved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Impossible requirements are incorrect requirements. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no well known meaning of "incorrect requirements". >>>>> >>>>> I just established the meaning of incorrect requirements >>>>> as any requirement that requires the logically impossible. >>>> >>>> That is insufficient to make the expression "incorrect requirements" >>>> meaningful in Common Language or well known. >>> >>> In other words if the requirement is to compute the square >>> root of the actual dead flesh of a dead chicken you would >>> not reject this out-of hand? >> >> Depends on what yuo count as rejection. I don't think I would >> try to meet that requirement. >> > > Incorrect decision problem requirements. The requirements are correct if the problem cannot be solved without meeting the requirements but is solved when the requirements are met. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 10:46 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112adpe$3vj58$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646115 |
On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> >>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by >>>>>> definition a mapping. >>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>>> derive outputs. >>>> >>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping and >>>> an algorithm. They are two different things. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >>> is not any sort of halt function. >> >> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'. >> >> André > A actual halt function must compute the mapping from > its actual input according to the operational semantics > of this input to the behavior that this input actually > specifies. No function can report on the behavior of > its caller because it has no idea who its caller is. A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function. However, no algrithm computes the halt function. The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value but so do many other functions, too. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 11:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112bdt8$9rgo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646133 |
On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by
>>>>>>> definition a mapping.
>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping
>>>>> and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>
>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>
>>> André
>
>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>
> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>
> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
> but so do many other functions, too.
>
When implemented as C functions
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
01 int DD()
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 DD();
12 HHH(DD);
13 }
The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
that only operate on their arguments.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-06 11:24 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112fonm$1plq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646160 |
On 04/07/2026 19:55, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is
>>>>>>>> by definition a mapping.
>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping
>>>>>> and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>
>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>
>>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>>
>> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
>> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>>
>> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
>> but so do many other functions, too.
>
> When implemented as C functions
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> 01 int DD()
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11 DD();
> 12 HHH(DD);
> 13 }
>
> The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
> in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
> idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
> that only operate on their arguments.
The halting problem does not require anything unless the input
fully specifies a computation.
The above DD calls HHH, which must be the same HHH as main calls if
DD halts. Therefore the bhaviour of HHH is a part of the computation
that the HHH would answer about if it were a halt decider.
The requirements of a halt decider don't require that then input
be presented to the decider the way it is done above. For exmample,
a text file would be acceptable.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-06 10:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112ghng$237s3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646228 |
On 7/6/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 04/07/2026 19:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is
>>>>>>>>> by definition a mapping.
>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping
>>>>>>> and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>
>>>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>>>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>>>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>>>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>>>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>>>
>>> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
>>> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>>>
>>> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
>>> but so do many other functions, too.
>>
>> When implemented as C functions
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> 01 int DD()
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 void main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 DD();
>> 12 HHH(DD);
>> 13 }
>>
>> The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
>> in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
>> idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
>> that only operate on their arguments.
> The halting problem does not require anything unless the input
> fully specifies a computation.
>
> The above DD calls HHH, which must be the same HHH as main calls if
> DD halts. Therefore the bhaviour of HHH is a part of the computation
> that the HHH would answer about if it were a halt decider.
>
HHH(DD) can and does correctly report on its input.
I just can get why it is taking so long for people
to understand that DD executed in main is out-of-scope
for HHH. It is like someone took actual brains apart
and welded in short-circuits.
> The requirements of a halt decider don't require that then input
> be presented to the decider the way it is done above. For exmample,
> a text file would be acceptable.
>
--
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 | 2026-07-06 09:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <NGKdnaJ4ifT2S9b3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646253 |
On 07/06/2026 08:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 04/07/2026 19:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is
>>>>>>>>>> by definition a mapping.
>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping
>>>>>>>> and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>>>>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>>>>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>>>>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>>>>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>>>>
>>>> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
>>>> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>>>>
>>>> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
>>>> but so do many other functions, too.
>>>
>>> When implemented as C functions
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> 01 int DD()
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 DD();
>>> 12 HHH(DD);
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
>>> in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
>>> idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
>>> that only operate on their arguments.
>> The halting problem does not require anything unless the input
>> fully specifies a computation.
>>
>> The above DD calls HHH, which must be the same HHH as main calls if
>> DD halts. Therefore the bhaviour of HHH is a part of the computation
>> that the HHH would answer about if it were a halt decider.
>>
>
> HHH(DD) can and does correctly report on its input.
> I just can get why it is taking so long for people
> to understand that DD executed in main is out-of-scope
> for HHH. It is like someone took actual brains apart
> and welded in short-circuits.
>
>> The requirements of a halt decider don't require that then input
>> be presented to the decider the way it is done above. For exmample,
>> a text file would be acceptable.
>>
>
>
It's well known that each finite input to a finite program
has a finite static-analysis that determines whether it halts,
furthermore for each language of finite input it can be determined
via a finite-static-analysis a partition of the language into what
halts and what doesn't.
Infinite tapes or with infinite programs are different,
see "Zeno machines" since super-tasks have accounts of
mathematical independence (whether a model of integers
is a fragment and finite, an extension and with infinite
members, or "in the middle", since the usual idea is that
a standard model of integers doesn't exist).
So, there are accounts of halting or "completions" in
the infinitary that are independent usual finitist
accounts, whose Law of Large Numbers is only the
Law of Small Numbers, since there is a "Law of Larger Numbers"
and a "Law of Largest Numbers", about models of arithmetic.
Otherwise that's just barking about "V = L" and so on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-06 11:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112gmps$24vn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646261 |
On 7/6/2026 11:23 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 07/06/2026 08:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2026 19:55, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is
>>>>>>>>>>> by definition a mapping.
>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping
>>>>>>>>> and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>>>>>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>>>>>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>>>>>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>>>>>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>>>>>
>>>>> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
>>>>> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
>>>>> but so do many other functions, too.
>>>>
>>>> When implemented as C functions
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>
>>>> 01 int DD()
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 void main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 DD();
>>>> 12 HHH(DD);
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
>>>> in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
>>>> idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
>>>> that only operate on their arguments.
>>> The halting problem does not require anything unless the input
>>> fully specifies a computation.
>>>
>>> The above DD calls HHH, which must be the same HHH as main calls if
>>> DD halts. Therefore the bhaviour of HHH is a part of the computation
>>> that the HHH would answer about if it were a halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> HHH(DD) can and does correctly report on its input.
>> I just can get why it is taking so long for people
>> to understand that DD executed in main is out-of-scope
>> for HHH. It is like someone took actual brains apart
>> and welded in short-circuits.
>>
>>> The requirements of a halt decider don't require that then input
>>> be presented to the decider the way it is done above. For exmample,
>>> a text file would be acceptable.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> It's well known that each finite input to a finite program
> has a finite static-analysis that determines whether it halts,
> furthermore for each language of finite input it can be determined
> via a finite-static-analysis a partition of the language into what
> halts and what doesn't.
>
>
> Infinite tapes or with infinite programs are different,
> see "Zeno machines" since super-tasks have accounts of
> mathematical independence (whether a model of integers
> is a fragment and finite, an extension and with infinite
> members, or "in the middle", since the usual idea is that
> a standard model of integers doesn't exist).
>
> So, there are accounts of halting or "completions" in
> the infinitary that are independent usual finitist
> accounts, whose Law of Large Numbers is only the
> Law of Small Numbers, since there is a "Law of Larger Numbers"
> and a "Law of Largest Numbers", about models of arithmetic.
>
>
> Otherwise that's just barking about "V = L" and so on.
>
>
The pathological self reference between DD and HHH
causes the proof of halting according to the operational
semantics of C would itself not terminate.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-08 10:55 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112kvp1$3eon4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646253 |
On 06/07/2026 18:30, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 04/07/2026 19:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is
>>>>>>>>>> by definition a mapping.
>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping
>>>>>>>> and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>>>>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>>>>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>>>>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>>>>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>>>>
>>>> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
>>>> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>>>>
>>>> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
>>>> but so do many other functions, too.
>>>
>>> When implemented as C functions
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> 01 int DD()
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 DD();
>>> 12 HHH(DD);
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
>>> in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
>>> idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
>>> that only operate on their arguments.
>> The halting problem does not require anything unless the input
>> fully specifies a computation.
>>
>> The above DD calls HHH, which must be the same HHH as main calls if
>> DD halts. Therefore the bhaviour of HHH is a part of the computation
>> that the HHH would answer about if it were a halt decider.
>
> HHH(DD) can and does correctly report on its input.
> I just can get why it is taking so long for people
> to understand that DD executed in main is out-of-scope
> for HHH. It is like someone took actual brains apart
> and welded in short-circuits.
It does not really matter. HHH and DD are not interesting and you
have never said anyting interesting about them.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-08 22:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112n47u$3nol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646353 |
On 7/8/2026 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 18:30, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2026 19:55, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that
>>>>>>>>>>> is by definition a mapping.
>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a
>>>>>>>>> mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>>>>>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>>>>>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>>>>>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>>>>>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>>>>>
>>>>> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
>>>>> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
>>>>> but so do many other functions, too.
>>>>
>>>> When implemented as C functions
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>
>>>> 01 int DD()
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 void main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 DD();
>>>> 12 HHH(DD);
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
>>>> in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
>>>> idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
>>>> that only operate on their arguments.
>>> The halting problem does not require anything unless the input
>>> fully specifies a computation.
>>>
>>> The above DD calls HHH, which must be the same HHH as main calls if
>>> DD halts. Therefore the bhaviour of HHH is a part of the computation
>>> that the HHH would answer about if it were a halt decider.
>>
>> HHH(DD) can and does correctly report on its input.
>> I just can get why it is taking so long for people
>> to understand that DD executed in main is out-of-scope
>> for HHH. It is like someone took actual brains apart
>> and welded in short-circuits.
>
> It does not really matter. HHH and DD are not interesting and you
> have never said anyting interesting about them.
>
HHH/DD conclusively proves that the halting problem
proof has always been incorrect. You must fucking
pay enough attention to see this.
It is stupid mistakes like this that convince people
that truth is not computable thus zero resources are
allocated to accomplish this.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 11:08 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112nkue$82ku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646376 |
On 09/07/2026 06:23, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2026 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2026 19:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/07/2026 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is by definition a mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a
>>>>>>>>>> mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> its actual input according to the operational semantics
>>>>>>> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
>>>>>>> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
>>>>>>> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A function does not compute. An algrothm may compute a function.
>>>>>> However, no algrithm computes the halt function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halt functions maps a computation to a truth value
>>>>>> but so do many other functions, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> When implemented as C functions
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> 01 int DD()
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 DD();
>>>>> 12 HHH(DD);
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The HP requires HHH to report on the DD() invoked
>>>>> in main(). This is impossible because HHH has no
>>>>> idea who its caller is and deciders are functions
>>>>> that only operate on their arguments.
>>>> The halting problem does not require anything unless the input
>>>> fully specifies a computation.
>>>>
>>>> The above DD calls HHH, which must be the same HHH as main calls if
>>>> DD halts. Therefore the bhaviour of HHH is a part of the computation
>>>> that the HHH would answer about if it were a halt decider.
>>>
>>> HHH(DD) can and does correctly report on its input.
>>> I just can get why it is taking so long for people
>>> to understand that DD executed in main is out-of-scope
>>> for HHH. It is like someone took actual brains apart
>>> and welded in short-circuits.
>>
>> It does not really matter. HHH and DD are not interesting and you
>> have never said anyting interesting about them.
>
> HHH/DD conclusively proves that the halting problem
> proof has always been incorrect.
No, it does not. Straw man is not a valid inference rule.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 20:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <1129j1t$3pgbd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646108 |
On 7/3/2026 6:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >> >>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by >>>> definition a mapping. >>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>> derive outputs. >> >> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping and >> an algorithm. They are two different things. >> >> André >> > > A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 > is not any sort of halt function. > It is a partial halt decider that correctly reports the halt status of any algorithm that halts when executed directly and incorrectly reports the halt status of algorithms that halt when executed directly. If you disagree, point out exactly which part of the below requirements is violated in doing so. If you dishonestly trim this, it will be taken as your official, on-the-record admission that the below requirements are satisfied for the subset of algorithms that halt when executed directly. Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y: A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping: (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 20:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <1129j48$3pgbd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646110 |
On 7/3/2026 8:10 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/3/2026 6:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>> >>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by >>>>> definition a mapping. >>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>> derive outputs. >>> >>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping and >>> an algorithm. They are two different things. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >> is not any sort of halt function. >> > > It is a partial halt decider that correctly reports the halt status of > any algorithm that halts when executed directly and incorrectly reports > the halt status of algorithms that halt when executed directly. Correction: it correctly reports the halt status of any algorithm that *does not* halt when executed directly. > > If you disagree, point out exactly which part of the below requirements > is violated in doing so. If you dishonestly trim this, it will be taken > as your official, on-the-record admission that the below requirements > are satisfied for the subset of algorithms that halt when executed > directly. > > > Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X > described as <X> with input Y: > > A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the > following mapping: > > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly > (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 21:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <1129pj0$3r18o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646110 |
On 7/3/2026 7:10 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/3/2026 6:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>> >>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by >>>>> definition a mapping. >>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>> derive outputs. >>> >>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping and >>> an algorithm. They are two different things. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >> is not any sort of halt function. >> > > It is a partial halt decider that correctly reports the halt status of > any algorithm that halts when executed directly and incorrectly reports > the halt status of algorithms that halt when executed directly. > > If you disagree, point out exactly which part of the below requirements > is violated in doing so. If you dishonestly trim this, it will be taken > as your official, on-the-record admission that the below requirements > are satisfied for the subset of algorithms that halt when executed > directly. > > > Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X > described as <X> with input Y: > > A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the > following mapping: > > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly > (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly > A actual halt function must compute the mapping from its actual input according to the operational semantics of this input to the behavior that this input actually specifies. No function can report on the behavior of its caller because it has no idea who its caller is. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 22:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <1129qgr$3qvvo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646117 |
On 7/3/2026 10:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 7:10 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 6:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> >>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by >>>>>> definition a mapping. >>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. >>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that >>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying >>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to >>>>> derive outputs. >>>> >>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping and >>>> an algorithm. They are two different things. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0 >>> is not any sort of halt function. >>> >> >> It is a partial halt decider that correctly reports the halt status of >> any algorithm that halts when executed directly and incorrectly >> reports the halt status of algorithms that halt when executed directly. >> >> If you disagree, point out exactly which part of the below >> requirements is violated in doing so. If you dishonestly trim this, >> it will be taken as your official, on-the-record admission that the >> below requirements are satisfied for the subset of algorithms that >> halt when executed directly. >> >> >> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >> X described as <X> with input Y: >> >> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >> following mapping: >> >> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >> directly >> > > A actual halt function must compute the mapping Shown above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brenden Jafarov <rnarnj@rbn.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 12:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112avca$nfr$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #646119 |
dbush wrote: >> A actual halt function must compute the mapping > Shown above. before halt it puts a reference i am going to halt, the caller will know it's going to halt, but will never know it did halt, unless it starts another process checking for that halt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 10:43 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112adjd$3vj58$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646087 |
On 03/07/2026 21:36, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a >>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >>>> >>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an >>>> output of either 0 or 1? >>>> >>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING >>> >> >> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by >> definition a mapping. > That only proves that the definition is incoherent. Your definitions often are. But the well known definition of "mapping" is not. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 11:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics |
| Message-ID | <112bdpc$9rgo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646132 |
On 7/4/2026 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 03/07/2026 21:36, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >>>>> >>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to >>>>> an output of either 0 or 1? >>>>> >>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING >>>> >>> >>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by >>> definition a mapping. > >> That only proves that the definition is incoherent. > > Your definitions often are. But the well known definition of "mapping" > is not. > The output really should be based on the input because computing the mapping from an input to an output requires some kind of correspondence between the two. -- 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]
Page 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web