Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #640679 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
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 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <20251119123727.934@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640937 |
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Your three pages full of nothng, titled Minimal Type Theory,
don't contain anything original.
Programming language expression trees are directed graphs
already.
Long before you wrote that, it was possible to write the
Liar Paradox using Lisp, whose data notation supports a way of
introducing cycles into the graph:
#1=(not #1#)
That little expression is all it takes to show that the
self reference is not evaluatable.
Furthermore, in Lisp, we can readily model the equivalent
of "This sentence of has five words"; we can translate
it to a three-element expression which says "this expression
has three elements":
#1=(eql 3 (length '#1#)) ;; yields T
#1# refers back to the entire expression '#1# means (quote #1#):
it quotes it, creating an expression referring to the syntax
itself, rather than its value. (This is significant.)
Then length is applied to that syntax itself, producing 3,
which is EQL to 3, resulting in true.
Showing it more formally in Lisp this way shows the reason
that a paradox is avoided here. The key is that we had to
use the quote operator.
When a sentence talks about itself quoted, it is different
than when the sentence refers to its value.
A sentence could refer to the value of its quoted self with EVAL; then
that would be back to the liar paradox, like this:
#1=(not (eval '#1#))
But when the sentence grasps itself quoted, it doesn't have to evaluate.
Examining certain properties of itself other than its value does not
lead to infinite regress; for instance the number of terms in the
expression can be safely counted with LENGTH.
---
By the way, on a related note: under the CLISP implementation of
Common Lisp (and perhaps others) we can use STEP to simulate the
Liar paradox step by step and see the backtrace. CLISP's
implementation of STEP does not perform a full macro-expanson;
it expands incrementally so it is able to get into it:
We turn on printing of the Circle Notation, so we can print
the self-referential code:
[1]> (setf *print-circle* t)
T
Validate that printing it is now possible without stack overflow/reset:
[2]> (quote #1=(not #1#))
#1=(NOT #1#)
Now begin stepping:
[3]> (step #1=(not #1#))
step 1 --> #1=(NOT #1#)
Step 1 [4]> :s
step 2 --> #1=(NOT #1#)
Step 2 [5]> :s
step 3 --> #1=(NOT #1#)
Show the backtrace at this point: 14 frames are printed
Step 3 [6]> :bt
<1/214> #<SYSTEM-FUNCTION SHOW-STACK> 3
<2/207> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::PRINT-BACKTRACE>
<3/201> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::DEBUG-BACKTRACE>
<4/192> #<SYSTEM-FUNCTION SYSTEM::READ-EVAL-PRINT> 2
<5/189> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::STEP-HOOK-FN-1-3>
<6/185> #<SYSTEM-FUNCTION SYSTEM::SAME-ENV-AS> 2
<7/171> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::STEP-HOOK-FN-1>
<8/169> #<SYSTEM-FUNCTION SYSTEM::DRIVER>
<9/135> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::STEP-HOOK-FN>
[128] EVAL frame for form #1=(NOT #1#)
[124] EVAL frame for form #1=(NOT #1#)
<10/114> #<SYSTEM-FUNCTION EVALHOOK>
<11/100> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::STEP-HOOK-FN>
[93] EVAL frame for form #1=(NOT #1#)
[89] EVAL frame for form #1=(NOT #1#)
<12/79> #<SYSTEM-FUNCTION EVALHOOK>
<13/65> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::STEP-HOOK-FN>
[58] EVAL frame for form #1=(NOT #1#)
<14/39> #<SPECIAL-OPERATOR LET*>
[37] EVAL frame for form (LET* ((SYSTEM::*STEP-LEVEL* 0) (SYSTEM::*STEP-QUIT* MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM) (SYSTEM::*STEP-WATCH* NIL) (*EVALHOOK* #'SYSTEM::STEP-HOOK-FN)) #1=(NOT #1#))
Printed 14 frames
Step one more:
Step 3 [6]> :s
step 4 --> #1=(NOT #1#)
Backtrace again, now there are 16 frames:
Step 4 [7]> :bt
<1/249> #<SYSTEM-FUNCTION SHOW-STACK> 3
<2/242> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::PRINT-BACKTRACE>
<3/236> #<COMPILED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::DEBUG-BACKTRACE>
[ ... SNIP ... ]
Printed 16 frames
At every step, the current expression is #1=(NOT #1#): we are always back to
the same expression, because to evaluate (NOT X) we have to evaluate X and X is
#1# which is the same expression itself again.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fm1m0$2mm39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640944 |
On 11/19/2025 2:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Your three pages full of nothng, titled Minimal Type Theory,
> don't contain anything original.
>
It directly encodes self-reference that no other
formal system has ever done and has a provability
operator directly in the language.
G := (F ⊬ G) // G "is defined as" unprovable in F
LP := ~True(LP) // LP "is defined as" not true
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fnurv$37027$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640960 |
On 20/11/2025 03:24, olcott wrote: > On 11/19/2025 2:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> Your three pages full of nothng, titled Minimal Type Theory, >> don't contain anything original. >> > > It directly encodes self-reference that no other > formal system has ever done Uhh, no, it's typical. -- 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]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fqfpa$3ul8g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640975 |
On 11/20/2025 2:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 20/11/2025 03:24, olcott wrote: >> On 11/19/2025 2:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> Your three pages full of nothng, titled Minimal Type Theory, >>> don't contain anything original. >>> >> >> It directly encodes self-reference that no other >> formal system has ever done > > Uhh, no, it's typical. > > Provide a concrete example of: "This sentence is not true" in First Order Logic or any other system besides Minimal Type Theory and Prolog. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <20251121140534.925@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640994 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/20/2025 2:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 20/11/2025 03:24, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/19/2025 2:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> Your three pages full of nothng, titled Minimal Type Theory, >>>> don't contain anything original. >>>> >>> >>> It directly encodes self-reference that no other >>> formal system has ever done >> >> Uhh, no, it's typical. >> >> > > Provide a concrete example of: > "This sentence is not true" > in First Order Logic or any other system > besides Minimal Type Theory and Prolog. ANSI Common Lisp: #1=(not #1#) -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fjb3o$1vrgd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640888 |
On 19/11/2025 01:03, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > I should probably functionalise negation and see what's what. errr... defunctionalise the evaluation of negation ... -- 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]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fjc4c$201kv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640892 |
On 11/18/2025 8:47 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 19/11/2025 01:03, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > >> I should probably functionalise negation and see what's what. > > > errr... defunctionalise the evaluation of negation ... > > LP := ~True(LP) // A := B means A "is defined as" B Directed Graph of evaluation sequence 00 ~ 01 01 True 00 // cycle Simply realize that the Liar Paradox is stuck in an infinite evaluation loop proving that it can't possibly be true or false. > -- > 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]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10foeea$3brbt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640852 |
On 17/11/2025 22:59, olcott wrote: > Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise. Yes, it is, I'm pretty sure (I haven't gone through it in such detail to satisfy all audiences). It's roughly evaluation of the contradictory G (as defined by Olcott in an inconsistent suppositional axiom extension) as opposed to judgement of that defining axiom (where judgement would be evaluation in a partiality monad instead of directly or in the identity monad). Where we have the craziness of nonstrict evaluation such as in Haskell, a partiality monad can be used for judgement and then used to construct evaluation using the monad's catamorphism with a simple empty loop. -- 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]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10fof7m$3brbt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640979 |
On 21/11/2025 01:14, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 17/11/2025 22:59, olcott wrote: > >> Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise. > > Yes, it is, I'm pretty sure (I haven't gone through it in such detail to > satisfy all audiences). > > It's roughly evaluation of the contradictory G (as defined by Olcott in > an inconsistent suppositional axiom extension) as opposed to judgement > of that defining axiom (where judgement would be evaluation in a > partiality monad instead of directly or in the identity monad). > > Where we have the craziness of nonstrict evaluation such as in Haskell, > a partiality monad can be used for judgement and then used to construct > evaluation using the monad's catamorphism with a simple empty loop. For clarity, the "disguise" is obviously that a purported universal decider is constructed of many of the same elements using a partiality monad for judgements and combining them to what is "the universal decider with what would be uniquely identifying characteristics if it exists" I think the catamorphism is required to complete the disguise because the universal halting decider would be an infinite loop inside the monad and to match the liar paradox it has to be merged with the empty case on application of its catamorphism. Obviously there are so many identities among the ways of couching these things that it must be that the halting problem is the liar paradox in disguise. It's interesting to explore how and how far removed are they (not really very far). -- 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]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise |
| Message-ID | <10foo4l$3droh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640979 |
On 11/20/2025 7:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 17/11/2025 22:59, olcott wrote: > >> Ultimately it is essentially the Liar Paradox in disguise. > > Yes, it is, I'm pretty sure (I haven't gone through it in such detail to > satisfy all audiences). > If it is the Liar Paradox in disguise and the Liar Paradox is simply semantically ill-formed then the Halting Problem and everything isomorphic to the Liar Paradox are also merely errors and can be written off as such. When we do this then we are on our way to making "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" AKA Analytic(Olcott) computable. My whole goal for 28 years. > It's roughly evaluation of the contradictory G (as defined by Olcott in > an inconsistent suppositional axiom extension) as opposed to judgement > of that defining axiom (where judgement would be evaluation in a > partiality monad instead of directly or in the identity monad). > > Where we have the craziness of nonstrict evaluation such as in Haskell, > a partiality monad can be used for judgement and then used to construct > evaluation using the monad's catamorphism with a simple empty loop. > > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) |
| Message-ID | <10fgdc5$17kq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640814 |
On 11/17/2025 6:00 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 3:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>> it kinda is on the verge of unquestionable orthodoxy given that >>>>> someone akin to the status of eric cannot start a proper academic >>>>> conversation on it >> >>>> 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. >> >>> ur factual incorrect >> >>> basic addition is predicated on set theory, >> >>> the halting problem within computing is based on reckoning about turing >>> machines, >> >>> literally read turing's paper /on computable numbers/ it never mentions >>> elementary set theory >> >> You've twisted my statements into an interpretation they were never meant >> to bare. > > u keep talking about some halting theorem as proven using the same > fundamentals as 2+2... when that is just not the case > > computing doesn't have the same fundamentals as set theory. a turing > machine does not derive justification from set theory, it is a self- > justifying construct > >> >>>> When somebody ignorant of this tries to start a "proper academic >>>> conversation" about the Halting Theorem, it is only right that the said >>>> conversation is nipped in the bud. When somebody knowledgeable does >>>> this, it can only be construed as disparagement and insult of the whole >>>> body of mathematicians. >> >>> ur elevating math into the realm of religion my dude, >> >> Not at all. I am a graduate mathematician, and thus knowledgeable in a >> way that the general public isn't. I respect mathematical researchers, >> who are at least as far ahead of me as I am of you. I expect and require >> due respect for this expertise, just as I defer to the expertise of >> others, no matter in what field. >> >> Religion doesn't come into it. > > you say that, but then you treat the fundamentals as unquestionable... > that's how religious operate dude > Yes. > heck even set theory is incomplete: the continuum hypothesis exists > outside of current set theory > > "but all axiomatic systems are incomplete" .... yeah, yeah, yeah ... > godel does not specify *how much* incomplete a system is > > you can't just pull godel out of ass every time you encounter a proposal > that ur fundimentals can't explain, because godel does not specify > limits of how complete a system can be beyond one very specific claim > The following Gödel G is semantically incorrect the same way that Liar Paradox is incorrect. The directed graph of their evaluation sequence has a cycle meaning that their evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop. G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Directed Graph of evaluation sequence 00 ↔ 01 02 01 G 02 ¬ 03 03 Prov 04 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle Prolog version ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). G = not(provable(F, G)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). false. LP := ~True(LP) // A := B means A "is defined as" B Directed Graph of evaluation sequence 00 ~ 01 01 True 00 // cycle Prolog version ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. >> >> [ .... ] >> >>> -- >>> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve >>> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis >> >>> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, >> >>> ~ nick >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgepo$180g1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640814 |
On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >> compute information that is not contained in >> their input. > > ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: > > one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string > describing the machine > That the halting problem limits computation is like this very extreme example: Predict who the next president of the United States will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). That cannot be derived from the input. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgff7$18211$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640857 |
On 11/17/2025 7:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>> compute information that is not contained in >>> their input. >> >> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >> >> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >> describing the machine >> > > That the halting problem limits computation > is like this very extreme example: > > Predict who the next president of the United States > will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). > That cannot be derived from the input. > No, it's more like this: Compute the product of X and Y but only using the single step of X + Y.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgmm2$16skb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640857 |
On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>> compute information that is not contained in >>> their input. >> >> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >> >> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >> describing the machine >> > > That the halting problem limits computation > is like this very extreme example: > > Predict who the next president of the United States > will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). > That cannot be derived from the input. bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute whether the machine described halts the only difference between ur claim here and the proofs is the why -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <20251117190515.406@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640861 |
On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: > On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>> their input. >>> >>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>> >>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>> describing the machine >>> >> >> That the halting problem limits computation >> is like this very extreme example: >> >> Predict who the next president of the United States >> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >> That cannot be derived from the input. > > bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: > > one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute > whether the machine described halts But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than the string. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgo31$16skb$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640862 |
On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>> their input. >>>> >>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>> >>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>> describing the machine >>>> >>> >>> That the halting problem limits computation >>> is like this very extreme example: >>> >>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>> That cannot be derived from the input. >> >> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >> >> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute >> whether the machine described halts > > But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one > unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. > > When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than > the string. yes i meant generally you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute whether a an machine description halts or not -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgpja$1aakr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640863 |
On 11/17/2025 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>> their input. >>>>> >>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>> >>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>> describing the machine >>>>> >>>> >>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>> >>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>> >>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>> >>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute >>> whether the machine described halts >> >> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >> >> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >> the string. > > yes i meant generally > > you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute > whether a an machine description halts or not > Didn't you suggest you have a solution to the halting problem using reflection?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgvjd$1bcfs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640864 |
On 11/17/25 7:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/17/2025 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>>> their input. >>>>>> >>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>>> describing the machine >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>>> >>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>>> >>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>>> >>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to >>>> compute >>>> whether the machine described halts >>> >>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >>> >>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >>> the string. >> >> yes i meant generally >> >> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute >> whether a an machine description halts or not >> > > Didn't you suggest you have a solution to the halting problem using > reflection? yes, i was speaking to the consensus understanding in what you've quoted -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fiudi$1stcl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640870 |
On 11/17/2025 9:18 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/17/25 7:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/17/2025 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>>>> their input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>>>> describing the machine >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>>>> >>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>>>> >>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>>>> >>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to >>>>> compute >>>>> whether the machine described halts >>>> >>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >>>> >>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >>>> the string. >>> >>> yes i meant generally >>> >>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute >>> whether a an machine description halts or not >>> >> >> Didn't you suggest you have a solution to the halting problem using >> reflection? > > yes, i was speaking to the consensus understanding in what you've quoted > Okay. Well, 100% per-path coverage is one way we can say that DD halts _and_ does not halt. I made the fuzzer for Olcotts DD for fun. Its NOT a solution to the halting problem. Actually, he raised some red flags in my mind when he tried to tell me that BASIC cannot handle recursion... Programming BASIC brings back memories of when I was a little kid. Actually, you should be able to mock up your reflection system. Have you made any headway?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fj75p$1udbr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640883 |
On 11/18/25 3:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/17/2025 9:18 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/17/25 7:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 11/17/2025 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to >>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in >>>>>>>>> their input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string >>>>>>>> describing the machine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation >>>>>>> is like this very extreme example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States >>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2). >>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input. >>>>>> >>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to >>>>>> compute >>>>>> whether the machine described halts >>>>> >>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one >>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings. >>>>> >>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than >>>>> the string. >>>> >>>> yes i meant generally >>>> >>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute >>>> whether a an machine description halts or not >>>> >>> >>> Didn't you suggest you have a solution to the halting problem using >>> reflection? >> >> yes, i was speaking to the consensus understanding in what you've quoted >> > > Okay. Well, 100% per-path coverage is one way we can say that DD halts > _and_ does not halt. I made the fuzzer for Olcotts DD for fun. Its NOT a > solution to the halting problem. Actually, he raised some red flags in > my mind when he tried to tell me that BASIC cannot handle recursion... depends on which BASIC tho, eh? > Programming BASIC brings back memories of when I was a little kid. > > Actually, you should be able to mock up your reflection system. Have you > made any headway? not at all i'm working on the logical consistency of the theory, which is going to be far simpler than actual implementation i'm currently a bit stumped on dealing with a possible a halting paradox constructed within RTMs, using an RTM simulating a TM simulating an RTM. this chain similarly mechanically cuts off the required information to avoid a paradox, kinda like a TM alone. not fully confident it's a problem or not i may write a post on it -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web