Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #640679 > unrolled thread

Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600
    Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:57 -0600
      Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:12 +0000
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000
            "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600
              Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000
                Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600
                  Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000
                    Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600
                      Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000
                        Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600
                      Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600
                The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600
                  Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000
                    Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
                  Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 01:03 +0000
                    Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:36 -0600
                      Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:51 +0000
                        Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:22 -0600
                          Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
                            Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600
                              Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000
                                Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600
                                  Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
                    Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000
                      Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600
                  Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000
                    Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000
                    Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600
                Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600
                Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600
                  Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500
                  Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800
                    Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000
                      Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800
                        Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800
                          Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800
                            Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800
                              Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800
                                Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:46 -0600
                                Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:17 +0000
                                  help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:43 -0800
                                    Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:48 +0000
                                      Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 11:19 -0800
                                        Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:47 +0000
                                          Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox --- TXR and AWK olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:49 -0600
                                          Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 21:01 -0800
                                    Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:18 -0600
                                Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 13:03 -0800
                        Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:45 +0000
                          polcott agrees the halting problem is wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:07 -0600
                          Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:41 +0000
                            polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:37 -0600
                              Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
                                Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 15:05 -0600
                                  Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:41 +0000
                                    Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:12 -0600
                                      Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:42 +0000
                                        Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:57 -0600
                                          Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:22 -0800
                                          Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:10 +0000
                                            Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:56 -0800
                        polcott agrees that the halting problem is incorrect in this way olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:47 -0600
                        Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-18 23:47 +0000
                          Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 00:13 +0000
                            Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 00:57 +0000
                          polcott has shwn that the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:17 -0600
                          Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:26 -0800
                            Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 19:42 +0000
                              polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- quit lying about what I say olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:45 -0600
                              Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800
                              Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700
                                Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600
                                Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000
                              homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800
                                Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000
                                  Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800
                                    Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000
                                      Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800
                                        Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000
                                          Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
                                            Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000
                                              Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000
                                  Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000
                          Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800
                    Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600
                Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600
                Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600
                halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600
                  Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000
                  Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000
                    Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600
                      Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000
                        Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600
                          Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000
                      Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600
      Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000
            Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600
              Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000
                Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600
                  Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000
                    Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600
                      Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000
      Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000
            Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600
              Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000
                Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000
            Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600
    Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000
      Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-13 04:50 +0000
            Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:00 -0600
            Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:16 -0800
    Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:27 -0600
      Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:46 +0000
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
            Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800
      Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200
        Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500
          Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200
            Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600
              Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200

Page 1 of 7  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#640679 — Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference

Rejecting expressions of formal language
having pathological self-reference

Explained how expressions with pathological self
reference can simply be rejected as semantically/
syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability,
and undecidability.

This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
(where A := B means A is defined as B).

https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO

Can someone review my actual reasoning
elaborated in the paper?

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#640684

On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> Rejecting expressions of formal language
> having pathological self-reference
> 
> Explained how expressions with pathological self
> reference can simply be rejected as semantically/
> syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability,
> and undecidability.
> 
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
> unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
> 
> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
> 
> Can someone review my actual reasoning
> elaborated in the paper?
> 

*ChatGPT critique of the above paper*
https://chatgpt.com/share/6914ab34-4440-8011-9395-8bec2af5f82f

The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640686

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.

The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their review on
the basis that Olcott is right.  Intelligent people do not do this.
They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either right or
(much more usually) wrong.

> -- 
> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640775

On 11/14/2025 2:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform
>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.
>>
>> They've got better things to do with their time than continually refuting
>> falsehoods which contradict proven basics.
>>
>>> LLM systems will look at something that does not conform
>>> to conventional wisdom and form their own proof that this
>>> idea is correct showing every detail of every step of this proof.
>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396916355_Halting_Problem_Simulation_in_C
>>
>> Then why are you posting on Usenet, where people aren't writing what you
>> want them to write?  Why not stick to these LLM sysems which do reply
>> what you want them to reply?
> 
> Because he knows they are bullshit that is programmed to agreew with
> the user if the user persists in fighting through pushback.
> 

Once an LLM proves that I am correct and that everyone
else doesn't have a clue I need to make my words clear
enough so that they can be understood by human reviewers.

I won't directly get credibility from LLMs until everyone
trusts them. Because of LLMs I can test and retest my words
to find the most succinct combination that completely
proves my point.

People here would much rather assume that they are already
correct than to bother verifying anything.

> The early versions of GPT-4 integrated into Microsoft Edge were
> better! That was programmed to detect argumentative cranks and
> end the conversation.
> 

Current LLMs can follow reasoning and anchor this reasoning
to well known facts proving that this reasoning is sound.

> If was an essential feature that should continue to be implemented
> in new LLM chat agents, in spite of more generous token limits.
> 
> Even in paid service, for that matter.
> 
> If the user is persisting thorugh more than three or four rounds
> of factual pushback, "This conversation is not productive; perhaps
> I can help you with something else" and that's it.
> 

Except that every push-back is addressed with an increasingly
deeper understanding of my view that it eventually agrees with.
There was a lot of push-back in the dialogue:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397442168_How_pathological_self-reference_is_confused_with_undecidability

If you weren't so damned sure that I must be wrong
you could see that.

> Cranks like Olcott would get squat all agreement out of that.
> 
> Chat AI that talks endlessly and lets itself be overwhelmed
> is a public disservice. It's not as egregious as supporting someone
> in planning to harm oneself or others, but it's in the same vein.
> Agreeing with someone's bullshit after forty rounds is a palpable
> perpetration of social harm.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640776

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> People here would much rather assume that they are already
> correct than to bother verifying anything.

People here verified the proofs of things like the Halting Theorem years
ago, if not decades ago.  That verification remains eternally valid.

[ .... ]

> If you weren't so damned sure that I must be wrong
> you could see that.

I'm not damned sure you're wrong; I know it for an absolutely proven
fact.  Having verified a mathematical proof of a theorem, there is no
need to even look at your arguments disagreeing with it.  People do,
though.  See above.

[ .... ]

> -- 
> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640801 — "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

On 11/16/2025 2:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>>> Very clever people have attempted to show
>>> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success.  Less
>>> clever people don't have a chance of doing so.
> 
>> That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open
>> the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to
>> themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/.
> 
> <sigh> That's not the way the world works.  Such results would have been
> published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny.

That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant
tenured PhD computer science professor could have been
fired merely because he brought up the idea that the
halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look
at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he
challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy.

> Something like this did happen some years ago, I can't remember the
> exact details, but I think it was a "proof" that integer arithmetic was
> inconsistent.  An even cleverer mathematician (I think it might have
> been Terence Tao) found flaws in the proof, and the paper was withdrawn.
> 
>> That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that
>> they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in
>> dead-usenet they can expect it to be true.
> 
>> Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a
>> famous fallacy, one of the famous ones.
> 
> Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge.  You don't call it
> "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to
> service your car or a doctor to service you.
> 

No one in any technical field: computer science,
mathematics, and logic can tolerate challenges to
the foundational assumptions of their field.

Everything has been proven to work correctly within
those foundational assumptions over many decades.

Only Philosophers in those technical fields can
have sufficient open mindedness to objectively
consider alternatives to the foundational assumptions.
Everyone else essentially construes this as blasphemy.

> You're suggesting that mathematics is founded on something like
> religion, and that one is free to reject these foundations as one is
> free to reject a religion.  Peter Olcott has done this and ended up with
> falsity and nonsense.
> 

It is the foundational assumptions that are taken to be
the infallible word of God such that any and all challenges
to these foundational assumptions are treated like blasphemy
that tenured professors can get fired for.

>> We normally only use that to make little children behave how we want
>> them too and we do it knowing that we must stop when they become
>> proper people.
> 
> That's a very cynical view of education.  You seem to be suggesting it
> would be better not to educate children, to avoid damaging them with
> "received doctrine".
> 
>> We only continue to do it when we are unable to perceive that others
>> could be proper people.
> 
> This seems to be getting preposterous.  Do you not regard young children
> as "proper people"?  I do.
> 
>>>> Philosophers of computation do not take these foundations as given.
> 
>>> Is there such a thing as a "philosopher of computation"?
> 
>> There used to be.
> 
>>> If so, name one.
> 
>> Haskell Curry (deceased).
> 
> Whom I've heard of.  Where is the evidence that he questioned the
> foundations of mathematics?
> 

https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
When combined together refutes
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem

>>> I put it to you that philosophers do indeed accept mathematical
>>> foundations.  If not, the burden of proof is in your court.
> 
>> The burden of proving to Olcott that Olcott is wrong is on whoever gives
>> a shit. If your posts are to prove to me then I'm offended by them. I'll
>> have you know I'm a proper person.
> 
> The foundations of mathematics are just as valid for you as for anybody
> else, just as are the foundations of physics, or of engineering, or of
> medicine, or of many other fields.
> 
> You should respect expertise in these fields, not disparage the experts
> as purveyors of "received doctrine".
> 

I have worked on this for 28 years because:
If the halting problem is correct then the notion
of "true on the basis of meaning" is broken.

I first spoke of absolute truth until I found
that people were confused and thought that absolute
truth only came from God and they didn't believe in God.

The I spoke of analytic truth until I found that
Willard Van Orman Quine could not even understand
that the notion that all bachelors are unmarried
is a stipulated relation between the term bachelor
and unmarried that defines the meaning of term
bachelor relative to the existing term unmarried.

Olcott's "true on the basis of meaning"
My correction to the analytic / synthetic distinction
is that analytic(Olcott) are expressions of language
are proven completely true entirely on the basis
of their relation to other expressions of language
that give them their meaning.

This only excludes expression of language that rely
on sense data from the sense organs such as the actual
smell of a rose.

The entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language is essentially a semantic tautology.

>> --
>> Tristan Wibberley
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640814 — Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2025 2:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Tristan Wibberley
>> <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2025 11:59, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>>>> Very clever people have attempted to show
>>>> inconsistencies in the mathematical foundations, without success.  Less
>>>> clever people don't have a chance of doing so.

>>> That's /much/ better politics but still sorely lacking. It leaves open
>>> the avenue that the clever people did indeed show the inconsistencies to
>>> themselves and to some others but they didn't show them to /you/.

>> <sigh> That's not the way the world works.  Such results would have been
>> published in a mathematical journal, and immediately attracted scrutiny.

> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant
> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been
> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the
> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look
> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he
> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy.

I put it to you that this has never happened.  Tenured professors don't
go around asserting falsehoods in their own field.  It they do, they are
a danger to their students, and should be removed.  It is common
knowledge that Wolfgang Mückenheim, who teaches at Augsburg, asserts
falsehoods on sci.math.  It is generally agreed there he should be
dismissed.

If a geography academic were to promulgate the notion that the Earth was
flat, he should likewise be fired.  Those in authority that assert and
teach falsehoods should not have such positions.

Again we're not talking about "conventional wisdom", we're talking about
firmly established knowledge.  "Conventional wisdom" is much weaker than
established knowledge, and it is often false.

>> Something like this did happen some years ago, I can't remember the
>> exact details, but I think it was a "proof" that integer arithmetic was
>> inconsistent.  An even cleverer mathematician (I think it might have
>> been Terence Tao) found flaws in the proof, and the paper was withdrawn.

>>> That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that
>>> they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in
>>> dead-usenet they can expect it to be true.

>>> Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a
>>> famous fallacy, one of the famous ones.

>> Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge.  You don't call it
>> "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to
>> service your car or a doctor to service you.


> No one in any technical field: computer science,
> mathematics, and logic can tolerate challenges to
> the foundational assumptions of their field.

No, mathematicians can't tolerate cranks telling them that 2 + 2 = 5, or
an arbitrary angle can be trisected by ruler and compass, or that the
halting theorem is wrong.  Academics hate lies and falsehoods.

By "challenges" you mean ignorant cranks disputing established knowledge.

> Everything has been proven to work correctly within
> those foundational assumptions over many decades.

Indeed, yes.  One such foundational assumption is that if you drop
something it falls.  Some people high on LSD decided that assumption was
false and jumped out of windows with tragic results.

> Only Philosophers in those technical fields can
> have sufficient open mindedness to objectively
> consider alternatives to the foundational assumptions.

Wrong.  Philosophers are insufficiently competent in the technical fields
to be able to evaluate them effectively.  Only technical experts are able
to do this.  The example you sometimes cite, of the new set theory ZFC,
was not formulated by philosophers.

> Everyone else essentially construes this as blasphemy.

Not at all.  I suspect more "everyone else"s construe such suggestions as
yet more time wasting from cranks.

>> You're suggesting that mathematics is founded on something like
>> religion, and that one is free to reject these foundations as one is
>> free to reject a religion.  Peter Olcott has done this and ended up with
>> falsity and nonsense.


> It is the foundational assumptions that are taken to be
> the infallible word of God such that any and all challenges
> to these foundational assumptions are treated like blasphemy
> that tenured professors can get fired for.

I don't know what you mean by God, here.  As I've said already, such
challenges are typically from uneducated time wasting cranks.  Tenured
professors accept things like Pythagoras's Theorem, 2 + 2 = 4, and the
Halting Theorem.  They are all firmly established trivial results.

[ .... ]

>>> --
>>> Tristan Wibberley

> -- 
> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640839 — Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

On 11/17/2025 11:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant
>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been
>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the
>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look
>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he
>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy.
> 
>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened.  Tenured professors don't
>>>>>>> go around asserting falsehoods in their own field.
> 
>>>>>> It is not a falsehood.
> 
>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been sacked for
>>>>> this reason.
> 
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf
> 
>>> What's that got to do with anything?  There is no indication of anybody
>>> being sacked in that article.  Nor in the article cited in the other
>>> reply you made to my last post.
> 
> 
>> You have to read it all the way through.
> 
> I have done now, more or less.  Nobody got sacked.
> 
>>    What strikes me most about these reviews is that
>>    they do not point out any error in my arguments
>>    and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults,
>>    that I am making a claim that is contrary to the
>>    current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing
>>    proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's
>>    in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's
>>    abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no
>>    need to read my arguments carefully.
> 
> That sounds like another crank.  Some of the reviewers did indeed point
> out errors.  Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though
> mathematics were a question of fashion.  It's not.  I would bet a large
> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like

He is a tenured computer science professor
with a PhD in computer science.

His name was on the back cover of a journal
as an editor of the journal that turned him down
in a very insulting way.

Halting misconceived?
Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017
tenured computer science professor with a PhD in computer science.
https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf

> yourself.  Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. 


>  The Halting Theorem
> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer
> science.
> 
> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of
> fruitless discussions which happen here.
> 
>> -- 
>> Copyright 2025 Olcott
> 
>> My 28 year goal has been to make
>> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640847 — Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2025 11:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2025 11:00 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2025 7:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 4:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> [ .... ]

>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that the world works. A brilliant
>>>>>>>>> tenured PhD computer science professor could have been
>>>>>>>>> fired merely because he brought up the idea that the
>>>>>>>>> halting problem might be wrong. No one bothered to look
>>>>>>>>> at any of the words that he wrote. The fact that he
>>>>>>>>> challenged conventional wisdom was considered blasphemy.

>>>>>>>> I put it to you that this has never happened.  Tenured
>>>>>>>> professors don't go around asserting falsehoods in their own
>>>>>>>> field.

>>>>>>> It is not a falsehood.

>>>>>> I put it to you again, that no tenured professor has ever been
>>>>>> sacked for this reason.

>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf

>>>> What's that got to do with anything?  There is no indication of
>>>> anybody being sacked in that article.  Nor in the article cited in
>>>> the other reply you made to my last post.


>>> You have to read it all the way through.

>> I have done now, more or less.  Nobody got sacked.

>>>    What strikes me most about these reviews is that
>>>    they do not point out any error in my arguments
>>>    and proofs. They point out, with accompanying insults,
>>>    that I am making a claim that is contrary to the
>>>    current orthodoxy. I know that. They know that Turing
>>>    proved that the Halting Problem is incomputable; it's
>>>    in all the textbooks. So they know from my paper's
>>>    abstract that the paper is wrong. So they feel no
>>>    need to read my arguments carefully.

>> That sounds like another crank.  Some of the reviewers did indeed point
>> out errors.  Note the way he says "current orthodoxy", as though
>> mathematics were a question of fashion.  It's not.  I would bet a large
>> amount of money on him not having a degree in mathematics, much like
>> yourself.  Perhaps one or more of his reviewers did. 

> He is a tenured computer science professor
> with a PhD in computer science.

But seemingly out of his depth with mathematics.

> His name was on the back cover of a journal
> as an editor of the journal that turned him down
> in a very insulting way.

That demonstrates the integrity of the journal in turning down nonsense,
even that of one of its editors.

> Halting misconceived?
> Bill Stoddart August 25, 2017
> tenured computer science professor with a PhD in computer science.
> https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf

I've just read that paper, and it's so full of holes and hand-waving that
it's wasn't really worth the effort.

For example, he attributes twists he has created in what he ignorantly
considers to be the only proof of the Halting Theorem to the theorem
itself.

He creates a "function" with a domain of three elements, and asserts that
since the third element has no consitent image in this function, that it
cannot be specified.  This is wholly spurious hand-waving.

He then goes on to assert that "We have no model for H [a purported halt
decider] so it cannot have a consistent specification".  Hand waving at
its most blatant.  Nowhere in this paper does Stoddart explain what
"model" means (presumably it's some well known notion in computer
science) nor why the lack of such a model implies a specification is not
possible.

The specification of a purported halt decider is simple and clear.  It is
a program which returns true if its input will halt, and false when it
won't.

Stoddart was out of his depth with the mathematical notions.  He
seemingly has no notion of a pure function; he uses "functions" which
have knowledge of where they were called from.  He somehow considers,
like Peter Olcott, that the purported decider deciding on an input
related to the decider is some special, invalid case.  Somebody of more
mathematical sophistication wouldn't make these mistakes.

He accepts that there is no halting decider, but wrongly attributes that
to the "impossibility" of specifying it.

If this paper has ever been considered for respectable publication, I
expect and hope that the editors would have rejected it.  It is truly
cranky.

>>  The Halting Theorem
>> is wholly a theorem of mathematics, and only secondarily about computer
>> science.

>> One can understand the reviewers not wanting to get into the sort of
>> fruitless discussions which happen here.

> -- 
> Copyright 2025 Olcott

> My 28 year goal has been to make
> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640855 — Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails*
> 
> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows.
> 
>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>> property.
> 
> Yes.  So what?  You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or
> syntactic property" without any loss.  You could omit the redundant
> "only", too.
> 
>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure*
> 
> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a
> failure.  It's certainly not clear from what you've written.
> 

The above that I formed myself has key details that
are simply assumed away from the conventional way
this is stated:

In computability theory, the halting problem is
the problem of determining, from a description
of an arbitrary computer program and an input,
whether the program will finish running, or
continue to run forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Makes sure to not take into account that an input
that calls its own decider specifies a different
sequence of steps than this same input to a decider
that it does not call.

You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not
specify recursive simulation the same way that you
can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5.

>> -- 
>> Copyright 2025 Olcott
> 
>> My 28 year goal has been to make
>> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640860 — Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [ .... ]
>> 
>>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails*
>> 
>> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows.
>> 
>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>>> property.
>> 
>> Yes.  So what?  You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or
>> syntactic property" without any loss.  You could omit the redundant
>> "only", too.
>> 
>>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure*
>> 
>> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a
>> failure.  It's certainly not clear from what you've written.
>> 
>
> The above that I formed myself has key details that
> are simply assumed away from the conventional way
> this is stated:
>
> In computability theory, the halting problem is
> the problem of determining, from a description
> of an arbitrary computer program and an input,
> whether the program will finish running, or
> continue to run forever.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> Makes sure to not take into account that an input
> that calls its own decider specifies a different
> sequence of steps than this same input to a decider
> that it does not call.

The input D does not "call its own decider".

It incorporates an implementation of a particular decider algorithm,
appiles it on itself, and then behaves contrary to its output.

> You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not
> specify recursive simulation the same way that you
> can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5.

It does! But (it has been shown with code, even, using
your own framework!) that a recursive simulation can consist
of a regenerating progression of /terminating/ simulations.

It is possible that generation of new simulations never stops;
but the simulations themselves terminate.  (It's also possible that they
don't terminate.)

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640868 — Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

On 11/17/2025 8:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails*
>>>
>>> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows.
>>>
>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Yes.  So what?  You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or
>>> syntactic property" without any loss.  You could omit the redundant
>>> "only", too.
>>>
>>>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure*
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a
>>> failure.  It's certainly not clear from what you've written.
>>>
>>
>> The above that I formed myself has key details that
>> are simply assumed away from the conventional way
>> this is stated:
>>
>> In computability theory, the halting problem is
>> the problem of determining, from a description
>> of an arbitrary computer program and an input,
>> whether the program will finish running, or
>> continue to run forever.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>> Makes sure to not take into account that an input
>> that calls its own decider specifies a different
>> sequence of steps than this same input to a decider
>> that it does not call.
> 
> The input D does not "call its own decider".
> 
> It incorporates an implementation of a particular decider algorithm,
> appiles it on itself, and then behaves contrary to its output.
> 

*From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept state
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state

*Keep repeating unless aborted*
(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

Input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does call its own decider Ĥ.embedded_H

>> You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not
>> specify recursive simulation the same way that you
>> can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5.
> 
> It does! But (it has been shown with code, even, using
> your own framework!) that a recursive simulation can consist
> of a regenerating progression of /terminating/ simulations.
> 
> It is possible that generation of new simulations never stops;
> but the simulations themselves terminate.  (It's also possible that they
> don't terminate.)
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640875 — Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott)

On 11/18/2025 7:45 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 6:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ]
> 
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails*
> 
>>>>> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows.
> 
>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>>>>>> property.
> 
>>>>> Yes.  So what?  You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or
>>>>> syntactic property" without any loss.  You could omit the redundant
>>>>> "only", too.
> 
>>>>>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure*
> 
>>>>> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a
>>>>> failure.  It's certainly not clear from what you've written.
> 
>>>> The above that I formed myself has key details that
>>>> are simply assumed away from the conventional way
>>>> this is stated:
> 
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is
>>>> the problem of determining, from a description
>>>> of an arbitrary computer program and an input,
>>>> whether the program will finish running, or
>>>> continue to run forever.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> 
>>>> Makes sure to not take into account that an input
>>>> that calls its own decider specifies a different
>>>> sequence of steps than this same input to a decider
>>>> that it does not call.
> 
>>> It does indeed so make sure, since taking those irrelevant details into
>>> account would change the nature of the problem, making it less tractable.
> 
>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to
>> recognize what is essentially the infinite
>> recursion behavior pattern. It that it?
> 
> No, not at all.  You shouldn't be so gratuitously offensive.  It doesn't
> add anything to the discussion.
> 

That people have been consistently flat out dishonest
about this every day for three years indicates the
need for escalation.

If you know nothing about programming and only know
math then you should have disclosed that you don't
have the mandatory prerequisites.

> I was talking at an abstract level, beyond your understanding.  When such
> happens, you should just drop out of the conversation rather than sully
> it with obscenities.
> 

*The abstraction simply assumes away these key details*

(a) Halt deciders are required to report on the
actual behavior that their actual input actually
specifies.

(b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to
report on other than the actual behavior that their
actual input actually specifies making the halting
problem incorrect.

If you don't know anything about programming you
won't be able to understand this.

>> -- 
>> Copyright 2025 Olcott
> 
>> My 28 year goal has been to make
>> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640852 — The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise

On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4.  It is
>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable.  The Halting Theorem is of
>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same
>> fundamentals.
> 
> 
> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4.
> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder
> than that.
> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but
> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird,
> sequence of functions.
> 
> It really is quite peculiar.
> 

Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise.

The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language

This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!

This is formalized in the Prolog programming language below.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in an
infinite loop. Just as the formalized Prolog
determines that there is a cycle in the directed
graph of the evaluation sequence of LP the simple
English proves that the Liar Paradox never gets
to the point. It has merely been semantically
unsound all these years.

> 
> You should be commended for finding it so natural, you are among the
> few. But the many have a stake and will enquire.
> 
> 
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
> 
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640853 — Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise

On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> 
>>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4.  It is
>>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable.  The Halting Theorem is of
>>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same
>>> fundamentals.
>> 
>> 
>> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4.
>> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder
>> than that.
>> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but
>> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird,
>> sequence of functions.
>> 
>> It really is quite peculiar.
>> 
>
> Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise.

No it isn't; not every self reference is Liar Paradox.

It is your /conjecture/ that the incomputability of halting somehow
contains the Liar Paradox; but it doesn't withstand rational scrutiny.

Here is why:

Self-reference occurs in the diagonal proof of the Halting Theorem.
It is this: the diagonal test case D refers to itself; it passes
itself to a decision algorithm. 

- D is not a logical proposition. D might not even be calculating
  a Boolean result.

- D is not contradicting itself in any way, saying "I am false".
  It cannot do that because it's not a proposition; it has no truth
  value, and doesn't assert any truth value.

- D does contradict something.

The contradiction is something like the one in "This sentence has
four words", though not quite.

In this analogy, the role of H(D) is the sentence itself: just like H(D)
makes an assertion of truth, so does the sentence.

The role of D is the word count of the sentence.

D contradicts H(D) through its behavior.

The word count of the sentence also contradicts that sentence
through its "behavior": its property of being five rather than four.

The important thing here is that "This sentence has four words"
is not the Liar Paradox.

> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language

... even if it were done correctly, wouldn't prove that halting is based
on the Liar Paradox.

Yes, we can model the Liar Paradox in languages and show how it
leads to infinite regress. E.g. Common Lisp:

  [1]> #1=(not #1#)

  *** - Program stack overflow. RESET

The expression #1=(not #1) is a complete, direct representation
of Liar as a Lisp expression. We do not need numerous lines of
Prolog.

#1=WHATEVER means "read WHATEVER object and associate it with
the integer label 1".

And then #1# means "do not read an object; instead return a reference
to the object previously associated with label 1".

This expression is saying exactly "The negation (not) of the expression,
which is myself, is true"; i.e. "This esxpression is false".

The "Program stack overflow" response in the CLISP implementation of
Common Lisp occurs when CLISP tries to traverse the syntax tree
of that expression to look for macros to expand. So we don't even
get to evaluation. The traversal triggers runaway recursion.


-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640871 — Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise

On 17/11/2025 23:22, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> The contradiction is something like the one in "This sentence has
> four words", though not quite.

You're definitely making it difficult, that example sentence is easily
seen to be false and so the whole "The contradiction ... " is very wrong
even with "... though not quite" added. It's totally off.


--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640888 — Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise

On 17/11/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
> On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. 
>>> It is
>>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable.  The Halting Theorem
>>> is of
>>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same
>>> fundamentals.
>>
>>
>> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4.
>> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder
>> than that.
>> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but
>> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird,
>> sequence of functions.
>>
>> It really is quite peculiar.
>>
> 
> Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise.
> 
> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
> 
> This sentence is not true.
> It is not true about what?
> It is not true about being not true.
> It is not true about being not true about what?
> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
> 
> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language below.
> 
> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
> LP = not(true(LP)).
> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
> false.

true/0
use \+/1 rather than not/1


> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
> resolution of an expression remains stuck in an
  ^^^^^^^^^^
> infinite loop.

You mean "judgement" ?

(1) I can see how a judgement looping with a negation in the middle
should be rejected as contradiction.

(2) But looping with double negation is merely nondetermining isn't it?


Examples

(1) A = \+(A).
(2) A = \+(\+(A)).

yet both fail to unify with an occurs check in prolog. I think you need
a deeper theory.

Before you mention intuitionistic double negation vs classical:

?- unify_with_occurs_check(\+A, \+(\+(\+A))).
false.

of course.

I should probably functionalise negation and see what's what.

--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640889 — Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise

On 11/18/2025 7:03 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 17/11/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4.
>>>> It is
>>>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable.  The Halting Theorem
>>>> is of
>>>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same
>>>> fundamentals.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4.
>>> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder
>>> than that.
>>> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but
>>> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually weird,
>>> sequence of functions.
>>>
>>> It really is quite peculiar.
>>>
>>
>> Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise.
>>
>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>
>> This sentence is not true.
>> It is not true about what?
>> It is not true about being not true.
>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>
>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language below.
>>
>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>> false.
> 
> true/0
> use \+/1 rather than not/1
> 
> 
>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
>> resolution of an expression remains stuck in an
>    ^^^^^^^^^^
>> infinite loop.
> 
> You mean "judgement" ?

I mean like this thingy:

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}


> 
> (1) I can see how a judgement looping with a negation in the middle
> should be rejected as contradiction.
> 
> (2) But looping with double negation is merely nondetermining isn't it?
> 

Here is the same thing in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory

LP := ~True(LP)  // A := B means A "is defined as" B
Directed Graph of evaluation sequence
00 ~               01
01 True            00 // cycle

The directed graph of the evaluation sequence
has a cycle causing evaluation to be literally
stuck in an actual infinite loop just like the
C function.

In both cases the Liar Paradox is definitively
rejected as not a truth bearer just like the
sentence "What time is it?" cannot not possibly
be true or false.

> 
> Examples
> 
> (1) A = \+(A).
> (2) A = \+(\+(A)).
> 
> yet both fail to unify with an occurs check in prolog. I think you need
> a deeper theory.
> 
> Before you mention intuitionistic double negation vs classical:
> 
> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(\+A, \+(\+(\+A))).
> false.
> 
> of course.
> 
> I should probably functionalise negation and see what's what.
> 
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
> 
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640928 — Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise

On 19/11/2025 01:36, olcott wrote:
> On 11/18/2025 7:03 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>> On 17/11/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable.  The Halting Theorem
>>>>> is of
>>>>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same
>>>>> fundamentals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4.
>>>> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder
>>>> than that.
>>>> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but
>>>> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually
>>>> weird,
>>>> sequence of functions.
>>>>
>>>> It really is quite peculiar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise.
>>>
>>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>>
>>> This sentence is not true.
>>> It is not true about what?
>>> It is not true about being not true.
>>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>>
>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language below.
>>>
>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>> false.
>>
>> true/0
>> use \+/1 rather than not/1
>>
>>
>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
>>> resolution of an expression remains stuck in an
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^
>>> infinite loop.
>>
>> You mean "judgement" ?
> 
> I mean like this thingy:
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>   HERE: goto HERE;
>   return;
> }

Ah the terminological problem of what to call something like a
"normalisation" process when it might be that no normal form exists.

In the pure functional world your C characterisation is typically called
"a computation" but I'm not sure where the boundary lies or whether you
really mean "judgement" or "evaluation". In the C world "evaluation" of
"Infinite_Loop()" is a real thing that exists, even if the expression
has no value or any normal form in any conventionally reasonable
formalisation and the mapping of your original terms to Infinite_Loop is
just one choice for how to judge.


--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640937 — Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise

On 11/19/2025 12:51 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 19/11/2025 01:36, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/18/2025 7:03 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>> On 17/11/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2025 4:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>> On 17/11/2025 22:15, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4.
>>>>>> It is
>>>>>> firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable.  The Halting Theorem
>>>>>> is of
>>>>>> the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same
>>>>>> fundamentals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a completely different league from 2 + 2 = 4.
>>>>> It's closer to x = 1/2 + x/2 but it's still conceptually /much/ harder
>>>>> than that.
>>>>> It's more like the problem of whether a fixed point exists or not, but
>>>>> it's for the fixed point of a limit of a particular, conceptually
>>>>> weird,
>>>>> sequence of functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really is quite peculiar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise.
>>>>
>>>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>> It is not true about what?
>>>> It is not true about being not true.
>>>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>>>
>>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language below.
>>>>
>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>> false.
>>>
>>> true/0
>>> use \+/1 rather than not/1
>>>
>>>
>>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
>>>> resolution of an expression remains stuck in an
>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> infinite loop.
>>>
>>> You mean "judgement" ?
>>
>> I mean like this thingy:
>>
>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return;
>> }
> 
> Ah the terminological problem of what to call something like a
> "normalisation" process when it might be that no normal form exists.
> 
> In the pure functional world your C characterisation is typically called
> "a computation" but I'm not sure where the boundary lies or whether you
> really mean "judgement" or "evaluation". In the C world "evaluation" of
> "Infinite_Loop()" is a real thing that exists, even if the expression
> has no value or any normal form in any conventionally reasonable
> formalisation and the mapping of your original terms to Infinite_Loop is
> just one choice for how to judge.
> 

When you fully understand every nuance of my terms
then you understand that when the directed graph
of the evaluation sequence of a formal expression
contains a cycle that this proves that this expression
is semantically unsound because the evaluation of
this expression does have an actual infinite loop
just like this one.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
    HERE: goto HERE;
    return;
}

> 
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
> 
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 7  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web