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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251120115427.869@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640961 |
On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>
>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>
>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>
>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>> interface and you know it
>>>
>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>
>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>> exist.
>>
>> If halting algorithms existed
>>
>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>
>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>> a wrong answer!
>>
>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>
> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
> the paradox
By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
writes it?
--
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 | 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fns5p$36nnk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640970 |
On 11/20/25 11:55 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>>
>>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>>> interface and you know it
>>>>
>>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>>
>>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> If halting algorithms existed
>>>
>>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>>
>>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>>> a wrong answer!
>>>
>>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>>
>> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
>> the paradox
>
> By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
> variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
> for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
> writes it?
>
assume the premise exist and show a contradiction for both deciders
within one machine
--
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 | 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251120121342.230@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640971 |
On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/20/25 11:55 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>>>> interface and you know it
>>>>>
>>>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>>>
>>>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> If halting algorithms existed
>>>>
>>>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>>>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>>>
>>>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>>>> a wrong answer!
>>>>
>>>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>>>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>>>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>>>
>>> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
>>> the paradox
>>
>> By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
>> variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
>> for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
>> writes it?
>>
>
> assume the premise exist and show a contradiction for both deciders
> within one machine
If one decider says true, and the other false, for the contradicting
case, then no can do. Infinitely looping, or terminating, contradicts
only one of the decider, agreeing with the other. There isn't a third
choice of behavior.
--
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 | 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fntda$3702s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640972 |
On 20/11/2025 20:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/20/25 11:55 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/25 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/19/25 6:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and
>>>>>>>> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make
>>>>>>> exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or
>>>>>>> not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable
>>>>>>> if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the deciders are H0(P) { return 0; } and H1(P) { return 1; } you can
>>>>>>> see that between the two of them, they cover the entire space: there
>>>>>>> cannot be a signal case whch both of these don't get right. One
>>>>>>> correctly decides all nonterminating cases; the other correctly decies
>>>>>>> all terminating cases, and every case is one or the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> common man those deciders do not provide an /effectively computable/
>>>>>> interface and you know it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try again, it's quite simple to produce a paradox that confounds two
>>>>>> legitimate deciders that genuinely never give a wrong answer
>>>>>
>>>>> But we have a proof that deciders which never give a wrong answer do not
>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> If halting algorithms existed
>>>>>
>>>>> - they would all agree with each other and thus look the same from the
>>>>> ouside and so wouldn't constitute a multi-decider aggregate.
>>>>>
>>>>> - it would not be /possible/ to contradict them: they never give
>>>>> a wrong answer!
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we want to develop diagonal cases whch contradict deciders,
>>>>> we have to accept that we are targeting imperfect, partial deciders
>>>>> (by doing so, showing them to be that way).
>>>>
>>>> for the sake of proof/example assume they are honest until you produce
>>>> the paradox
>>>
>>> By "until", are you referring to some temporal concept? There is a time
>>> variable in the system such that a decider can be introduced, and then
>>> for at time, there exists no diagonal (or other) case until someone
>>> writes it?
>>>
>>
>> assume the premise exist and show a contradiction for both deciders
>> within one machine
>
> If one decider says true, and the other false, for the contradicting
> case, then no can do. Infinitely looping, or terminating, contradicts
> only one of the decider, agreeing with the other. There isn't a third
> choice of behavior.
>
oh I see, not that the thwarted deciders go different ways, but the raw
deciders go different ways before thwarting!
well, the results of the deciders are combined to form a single decider,
if that is (const . first) it's just equal to the first decider, if it's
(const . second) it's just equal to the second decider, if it's 'or' or
and then it's a bit complicated. There's a whole thing about computing
the conjunction of all deciders that approaches the universal decision
as you approach the universal inclusion but how long does the approach
take... well, we can make an intuitive leap based on what we know about
halting.
--
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 | 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fmfjp$2phq9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640956 |
On 20/11/2025 02:29, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-20, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >> a) you can construct halting paradoxes that contradicts multiple and >> possibly even infinite deciders. certainly any finite set, after which > > This is not possible in general. The diagonal test case must make > exactly one decision and then behave in a contradictory way: halt or > not. If it interrogates as few as two deciders, it becomes intractable > if their decisions differ: to contradict one is to agree with the other. Their decisions (evaluations) don't differ when they both exist. -- 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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fohmg$3cgrf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640884 |
On 11/18/2025 3:47 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 18/11/2025 03:10, 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 > > What does that mean though? > > It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ machine > description D, must compute "whether or not D's halting is computable". > [And saying no such single TM exists?] > > The problem is in the phrase within quotes. Surely that phrase means > "whether or not there exists a TM that computes whether the given D > halts or not"? If not, what does it mean? > > The All is the All, take the fact that any machine can have a specialized decider, to infinity and beyond.... Its all? How many did it mis, none. Ahh, a specialized decider is just a finite instance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem |
| Message-ID | <10fgpmd$1ab77$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640861 |
On 11/17/2025 8:46 PM, dart200 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:
>
No I am directly showing the key error of the
halting problem. It is very very difficult to
to understand. I have been working on this since
2004 and I just understood the error this year.
> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to compute
> whether the machine described halts
>
The input to HHH(DD) specifies a different sequence
of steps than the input to HHH1(DD).
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that returns to DD that returns to HHH1.
The sound basis of this reasoning is the
semantics of the C programming language.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int HHH1(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
> the only difference between ur claim here and the proofs is the why
>
--
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 | 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math |
| Message-ID | <10fik0a$1q4nk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640814 |
On 11/18/2025 2:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2025 7:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics,
>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science.
>
>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing
>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around
>
>>> Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th
>>> century. Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the
>>> maths of the time.
>
>> He invented computer science and when he did that
>> he became the first computer scientist. That his
>> ideas were anchoring in a the brand new formalism
>> of Turing machines broke his work away from math.
>
> It did not. His 1936 paper was a mathematics paper.
>
He cold not call himself a computer scientist at
the time because his work was the creation of
computer science. For many years all work on
computer science was done in the applied mathematics
department.
>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as
>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically
>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory
>
>>> The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing
>>> machine is incidental. They are 100% mathematical abstractions,
>>> defined, used, and reasoned about as such.
>
>> The fact that one can build Turing computable functions
>> in C abstracts tons of details that have nothing to do
>> with the essence of computation.
>
> No, you've got that the wrong way round. The C language burdens
> computation theory with all sorts of unnecessary details (unnecessary
> for computation theory, that is).
>
Simply moving an object in memory from one location
to another is far too burdensome. The RASP machine
maps pretty well to x86 which in turn maps pretty
well to C.
>> Relationships that were buried in detail can now be finally seen
>> clearly.
>
> C burdens theory with obfuscation. Turing machines are lacking such
> inessentials, yet are capable enough to perform any computation.
>
>>>> that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with
>>>> full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made
>>>> resilient to semantic paradoxes
>
>>> That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine;
>>> there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't. It
>>> is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there
>>> are no machines more powerful than turing machines.
>
>> His reflection seems to enable a machine to see its context.
>
> But the resulting machine won't be able to do anything a suitable turing
> machine couldn't.
>
It would point out a new way of looking at things that
has never been sufficiently evaluated before.
> [ .... ]
>
>>> The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been
>>> for many decades.
>
>> Within a certain set of incorrect assumptions it is fully resolved.
>
> You keep saying this, but you've never identified such an incorrect
> assumption. It's not even clear what you mean by "incorrect
> assumptions".
>
I have repeatedly done this yet you are so sure
that I must be wrong that you cannot pay enough
attention.
The reason that I have to repeat some of these
things over and over with progressive refinements
is that everyone is so sure that I must be wrong
that that only glance at some of my words as
their entire basis to contrive a baseless rebuttal.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int HHH1(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that
returns to DD that returns to HHH1.
The behavior of DD simulated by HHH1 is the
same as the behavior of DD() executed from main.
The sound basis of this reasoning is the
semantics of the C programming language.
(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.
--
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 | 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600 |
| Subject | Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable |
| Message-ID | <10fpvbj$3p0e3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640814 |
On 11/21/2025 1:38 AM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/20/25 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>>>> >>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in >>>>> turing >>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >>>> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >>>> problem altogether. >>>> >>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory >>>> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they >>>> are >>>> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >>>> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >>>> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >>>> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >>>> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >>>> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is >>>> just a >>>> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >>>> order to believe this). >>> >>> literally his words: >>> >>> we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, >>> ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied >>> with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and >>> divided into >>> sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any >>> moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol >>> T(r)vwhich >>> is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The >>> symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The >>> "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, >>> "directly aware" [Tur36] >> >> Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, > > several times end to end??? i'm smelling some bs my dude, sorry bout > that, but i'm going to have quote turing a bunch to show how ur quite > mistaken about the paper. > > i haven't read the paper thoroughly end to end. i've only read certain > sections thoroughly and skimmed it end to end. most of my focus has into > specifically §8, and have read that *very* thoroughly. i then skimmed > the rest of the paper concentration specifically on how the results of > of §8 are used to justify conclusions in the following sections. i've > mostly ignored before §8 since he was mostly just constructing turing > machines, but have a rough idea what's going on. > >> working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a >> mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. >> >>> idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's >>> weird to >>> claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of >>> being >>> specific about it. >> >> He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person >> who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He >> knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing >> mathematical results about mathematical objects. >> >> What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems >> about mathematical objects? >> >>>> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >>>> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >>>> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >>>> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >>>> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank >>>> ever >>>> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >>>> cases, even understand it). >>> >>> no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, >> >> There is no paradox. > > i'm gunna say this a million times, eh??? > > *the halting paradox is a paradox like how the liar's paradox is a paradox* > When an input D to a decider H is encoded to do the opposite of whatever H returns this H/D pair is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. The above definitively proves that the Liar Paradox is semantically unsound because its resolution has an infinite resolution loop. Because the halting problem is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox the Halting Problem is refuted by proxy. So more than a mere paradox both the Halting Problem and the Liar Paradox are rejected as errors of reasoning. When we start with a complete set of atomic facts of the world expressed in language and the only inference step allowed is semantic logical entailment then no paradox can be derived and True(Language L, Expression E) can always be computed. The language to encode all of this is an extended form of Montague Grammar uniting syntax and semantics as one. This discards the whole notice of model theory. It makes a syntactic proof the same thing as semantic logical entailment. The Atomic facts of the world are stored in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. > they work the same way: if you try to "decide" the math object into a > set classifying it's semantics, then the object will take that > classification and defy the classification, making it impossible to > decide upon. > >> >>> they all focus on the halting problem which wasn't what turing >>> specifically >>> worked on. >> >> Since Turing was interested in the mathematics (the >> Entscheidungsproblem) and not the practicality of what we now call >> "computing" he rattles off what we now call the halting theorem and a >> couple of other (to him) trivial results without giving them either a >> name or much weight, except in that the advance his main goal. > > yes, he was using them as building blocks in his proof > >> >>> turing uses a "satisfactory" problem to support godel's incompleteness >>> not the halting problem, >> >> No. I'm not sure what you mean by "a 'satisfactory' problem" because > > /A number which is a description number of a circle-free machine will be > called a satisfactory number. In §8 it is shown that there can be no > general process for determining whether a given number is satisfactory > or not/ [Tur36 p241] > > after turing spends §1-§7 defining turing machine, §8 is where he proves > the "halting theorem" as you say. in that proof he's really proving > there's no way to prove a number "satisfactory" or more technically > "circle-free" > > big miss there buddy, the "satisfactory" paradox (inability to build a > general decider for "satisfactory" numbers) he describes §8 (on p247) in > is literally keystone contradiction he bases the rest of his undecidable > proof > >> Turing uses the term "satisfactory" only in relation to numbers. >> However, he is not supporting Godel's incompleteness theorem, he is > > he is 100% supporting godel's result > > /If the negation of what Godel has shown had been proved, i.e. if, for > each U, either U or —U is provable, then we should have an immediate > solution of the Entscheidungsproblem. For we can invent a machine H > which will prove consecutively all provable formulae. Sooner or later H > will reach either U or —U. If it reaches U, then we know that U is > provable. If it reaches —U, then, since K is consistent (Hilbert and > Ackermann, p. 65), we know that U is not provable/ [Tur36 p259] > > what he's doing is saying that if godel had proven otherwise (to > incompleteness) then there'd be some machine which would prove all > provable formulae > > because of this there must be some method to ensure such isn't > construct-able, and ultimately §11 is tying such a machine to the > previously disproveb notion (of §8) that a decider D that could > determine whether a given number is satisfactory: > > /We are now in a position to show that the Entscheidungsproblem cannot > be solved. Let us suppose the contrary. Then there is a general > (mechanical) process for determining whether Un(𝓜 ) is provable. By > Lemmas 1 and 2, this implies that there is a process for determining > whether 𝓜 ever prints 0, and this is impossible, by §8. Hence the > Entscheidungsproblem cannot be solved/ [Tur26 p262] > > yes he is ultimately also disproving the entscheidungsproblem, but he's > motivated in doing so specifically because it aligns with godel's > previous result, and his paper ultimately strengthens godel's result, > even if the specific method *is* quite different > >> using what we now call the halting theorem to derive results about >> computation numbers. In section 11 he says "It should perhaps be >> remarked what I shall prove is quite different from the well-known >> results of Gödel". >> >>> the halting problem variant was >>> first described by kleene and/or davis >> >> The term was indeed coined later, but the result is right there in the > > not just coined later, but also described later. turing specifically > tied his support of incompleteness to the "satisfactory number" paradox, > not halting paradox > >> paper along with two proofs. He was inventing the whole subject on the >> fly so it not surprising that we now use other terms, but a theorem by >> another name shall smell as sweet. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600 |
| Subject | halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <65-dnT5zktizsrz0nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #640814 |
On 11/21/2025 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: > >> On 11/20/25 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> On 11/19/25 3:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics, >>>>>>> and only secondarily about computer science. >>>>>> >>>>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>>>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around >>>>> No. Turing was working on the Entscheidungsproblem. A different >>>>> problem altogether. >>>>> >>>>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically >>>>>> undertake the operations, not set theory >>>>> No. Turing machines are not "axioms" in any sense of the word; they are >>>>> entirely mathematical entities built from the axioms of set theory. >>>>> Turing was writing for an audience that would know that a "tape" was >>>>> just a convenient term for a function from Z to Gamma (the tape >>>>> alphabet), that the "head" is just an integer and "writing to the tape" >>>>> just results in a new function from Z to Gamma. The "machine >>>>> configuration" is just a tuple as is the TM itself. I.e. a TM is just a >>>>> set (though you need to know how tuples and function are just sets in >>>>> order to believe this). >>>> >>>> literally his words: >>>> >>>> we may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions q1, q2, >>>> ... qi; which will be called "m-configurations". The machine is supplied >>>> with a "tape " (the analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into >>>> sections (called "squares") each capable of bearing a "symbol". At any >>>> moment there is just one square, say the r-th, bearing the symbol T(r)vwhich >>>> is "in the machine". We may call this square the "scanned square ". The >>>> symbol on the scanned square may be called the " scanned symbol". The >>>> "scanned symbol" is the only one of which the machine is, so to speak, >>>> "directly aware" [Tur36] >>> Yes, I've read the paper several times. Turing was a mathematician, >> >> several times end to end??? > > Yes. I taught this material at a UK university for many years. > >> i'm smelling some bs my dude, sorry bout that, but i'm going to >> have quote turing a bunch to show how ur quite mistaken about the paper. >> >> i haven't read the paper thoroughly end to end. i've only read certain sections thoroughly and >> skimmed it end to end. most of my focus has into specifically §8, and have read that *very* >> thoroughly. i then skimmed the rest of the paper concentration specifically on how the results >> of of §8 are used to justify conclusions in the following sections. i've mostly ignored before >> §8 since he was mostly just constructing turing machines, but have a rough idea what's going >> on. > > And you *haven't* read it thoroughly end to end??? > >>> working under Alonzo Church on formal systems. He is describing a >>> mathematical object now called a Turing Machine. >>> >>>> idk maybe you can describe turing machines in set theory, but it's weird to >>>> claim turing just assumed they would make the connection instead of being >>>> specific about it. >>> He was a mathematician working at a time when a computer was a person >>> who did arithmetic and sometimes symbol manipulation -- i.e. maths. He >>> knew (and he knew that all his reader knew) that he was describing >>> mathematical results about mathematical objects. >>> What do you think he was talking about if not mathematical theorems >>> about mathematical objects? >>> >>>>> The Entscheidungsproblem is an entirely mathematical question about >>>>> formal systems. Cranks focus on Turing's work because the metaphors of >>>>> tapes and so on are easy to get one's head around (no pun intended!). >>>>> This is also why Turing gets so much credit, but Church, technically, >>>>> got there first with his proof using the lambda calculus. No crank ever >>>>> disputes this proof because they can't waffle about it (or, in most >>>>> cases, even understand it). >>>> >>>> no one focuses the semantic paradox actually described by turing either, >>> There is no paradox. >> >> i'm gunna say this a million times, eh??? >> >> *the halting paradox is a paradox like how the liar's paradox is a >> paradox* > > I know this is a modern form of proof -- just keep saying it -- but it > remains false. > >> they work the same way: if you try to "decide" the math object into a set classifying it's >> semantics, then the object will take that classification and defy the classification, making it >> impossible to decide upon. > > No. Every "object" in the input set can be correctly decided. It took > me years to get PO to admit the "every instance of the halting problem > has a correct yes/no answer". Even so, he then he went on to deny it > again later. Do you also deny this? > That was a mistake that I made on an insufficient basis. I had this insight 21 years ago yet could not state it with exact precision until about a week ago. With the halting problem counter example input where input D does the opposite of whatever decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. The Liar Paradox is provably unsound in that its evaluation sequence remains stuck in an infinite loop: ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. *A Phd computer science professor agrees* Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf -- 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 | 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fre19$6hpu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640997 |
On 22/11/2025 03:34, olcott wrote: > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever > decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly > isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. Previously you said the liar is hidden inside halting. Now you say it's exactly isomorphic! Are you training an expert system? -- 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251121220635.872@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640997 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever > decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly > isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any proposition with an indeterminate truth value. You are too incompetent to understand what a homeomorphism is and how to prove one. All you are saying is that the situation vaguely /feels/ like it resembles the Liar Paradox, and that legitimizes you to use a term like "isomorphism". -- 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 | 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fsd3b$f5ku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641001 |
On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> With the halting problem counter example input >> where input D does the opposite of whatever >> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly >> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. > > No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate > truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any > proposition with an indeterminate truth value. > With the halting problem counter example input where input D does the opposite of whatever decider H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. When the behavior of D depends on the return value of H and D does the opposite of whatever H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer. Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer is isomorphic to this question: Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ? What correct Boolean value should H return to D? > You are too incompetent to understand what a homeomorphism is and how to > prove one. > > All you are saying is that the situation vaguely /feels/ > like it resembles the Liar Paradox, and that legitimizes > you to use a term like "isomorphism". > > -- 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 | 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122084031.223@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641006 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>> With the halting problem counter example input >>> where input D does the opposite of whatever >>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly >>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. >> >> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate >> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any >> proposition with an indeterminate truth value. >> > > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever decider > H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly > isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. > > When the behavior of D depends on the return > value of H and D does the opposite of whatever > H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question > that lacks a correct yes/no answer. Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value. > Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer > is isomorphic to this question: The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0. It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words" in "This sentence has four words". > Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ? > What correct Boolean value should H return to D? The correct value is 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <10fsr0u$l7aq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641014 |
On 11/22/2025 10:45 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever
>>>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly
>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate
>>> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any
>>> proposition with an indeterminate truth value.
>>>
>>
>> With the halting problem counter example input
>> where input D does the opposite of whatever decider
>> H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly
>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>
>> When the behavior of D depends on the return
>> value of H and D does the opposite of whatever
>> H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question
>> that lacks a correct yes/no answer.
>
> Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar
> Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a
> contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five
> contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there
> is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value.
>
>> Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer
>> is isomorphic to this question:
>
> The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0.
> It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words"
> in "This sentence has four words".
Neither return value is correct because D does
the opposite of whatever value is returned just
like "This sentence is not true" is true if it
is not true and not true if it is true, thus
it is neither true nor false therefore not a
proposition.
>
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>> What correct Boolean value should H return to D?
>
> The correct value is 1.
>
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
You know that you are lying about this. Does that
give you a cheap thrill?
--
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 | 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122093606.59@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641015 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.theory.]
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2025 10:45 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly
>>>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate
>>>> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any
>>>> proposition with an indeterminate truth value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With the halting problem counter example input
>>> where input D does the opposite of whatever decider
>>> H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly
>>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>> When the behavior of D depends on the return
>>> value of H and D does the opposite of whatever
>>> H returns the H/D pair itself is a yes/no question
>>> that lacks a correct yes/no answer.
>>
>> Umm, no; there has to be a self-negation in order to have a Liar
>> Paradox. For instance "This sentence has four words" contains a
>> contradiction: the sentence's "behavior" of having a word count of five
>> contradicts an assertion that is found in the same sentence. Yet there
>> is no paradox: the sentence readily identifies as having a false value.
>>
>>> Every yes/no question that lacks a correct yes/no answer
>>> is isomorphic to this question:
>>
>> The correct answer is 1 in the H/D pair in which H returns 0.
>> It is not lacking. Just like the correct answer is "five words"
>> in "This sentence has four words".
>
> Neither return value is correct because D does
No, since 0 is incorrect, 1 is correct.
D() terminates.
> the opposite of whatever value is returned just
> like "This sentence is not true" is true if it
No, it is a bit like 'This sentence has four words".
The claim made by the sentence is incorrect;
the correct claim is five.
> is not true and not true if it is true, thus
> it is neither true nor false therefore not a
> proposition.
No such thng is going on in the H(D) case. H(D) returns false. D() then
terminates.
It is we, the outside observer, who remark that H(D)'s return value
doesn't match the D behavior.
But we are not part of the test case.
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>>> What correct Boolean value should H return to D?
>>
>> The correct value is 1.
>>
>
> int D()
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(D);
Here we can replace H(D) by 0 without changing D because
we know that term has that value. This is a valid mathematical
substitution.
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> You know that you are lying about this. Does that
> give you a cheap thrill?
You yourself know that D() returns at that UTM(D) returns 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox |
| Message-ID | <20251122201022.812@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641006 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2025 12:08 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>> With the halting problem counter example input >>> where input D does the opposite of whatever >>> decider H reports this specific H/D is exactly >>> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox. >> >> No it isn't. The Liar Paradox has an indeterminate >> truth value; the H/D pair does not contain any >> proposition with an indeterminate truth value. >> > > With the halting problem counter example input > where input D does the opposite of whatever decider > H reports this specific H/D pair is exactly But, you wrote this earier today: PO> D and H are the generic template. PO> DD and HHH are the physical implementation. A "generic template" is not a decider; H is not a decider. That's one of the sources of your confusion. Your mind fluidly equivocates between concrete functions and the template recipes that generate their form. -- 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 | 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10fdcll$dj43$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640686 |
On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't
>>>>>>> have seen
>>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or
>>>>>>> "looks
>>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something
>>>>>>> takes more time and work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does
>>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words
>>>>> belong to which.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without
>>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject
>>>>> more than what the good reason requires.
>>>>
>>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform
>>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.
>>>
>>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an
>>> inaccurate result.
>>
>> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums
>> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without
>> even looking at them.
>
> How did you determine "without eve looking at them"?
>
A tenured PhD computer science professor
has a very well documented equivalent
experience many different times in many
different ways.
"Something is wrong with the halting problem"
is immediately translated into {crackpot}.
The way that I can tell in my hundreds of
cases is that they said I was wrong and
never provided any reasoning what-so-ever
about how and why I was wrong.
Technical people in the fields of computer
science, math and logic has an emotional
attachment to the foundational assumptions
that is equivalent to a religion.
On the sole basis that the reasoning is correct
within these foundational assumptions they
construe this as absolute proof that these
assumptions are true.
It is like they don't have a clue that sound
deduction is not the same as valid deduction.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if
it is both valid, and all of its premises are
actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument
is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
--
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 | 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112102726.139@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640684 |
On 2025-11-12, 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. Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence which contradicts your set view in any matter. Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. Anyway, that /is/ the right approach toward anything. Anything anyone says should be suspected of having a factual or logical flaw, until proven otherwise. Here is an idea for you: maybe try being right 95% of the time, for a while. Say two weeks, or a month. Instead of your usual, 95%+ wrong. There is a human bias at play here and I will explain it to you: people are more motivated to respond when you are wrong. If you're 80% wrong, the 0.8 fraction of your remarks that is wrong will get more engagement than the 0.2 that are right. Thus it might be that, among those of your remarks which fetch engagement, the fraction which are wrong might be amplified to something much higher, like 0.97. This is why social networking algorithms are rigged to spread rage bait: to drum up engagement. It's amazing you don't have the maturity to know all this on your own; that it has to be explained to a grown up. Most of us here struggle not to say an incorrect thing. in a comp.* newsgroup or elsewhere, yet here you practically made a sport out of it; you say some wrong shit more times in a day than an NBA player takes a shot at the hoop. -- 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 | 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f2l1h$1l3bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640688 |
On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-12, 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. > > Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence > which contradicts your set view in any matter. > Not at all. Not ever. > Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times > someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that > everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. > People on these forums have only agreed with me at most 1% of the time and the only case besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. You are still trying to get away with the utter nonsense that once correct non-termination behavior criteria have been correctly met that you can try again and get a different result. I would really like to think that you are not a damned liar, yet no alternative seems reasonably plausible. > Anyway, that /is/ the right approach toward anything. Anything anyone > says should be suspected of having a factual or logical flaw, until > proven otherwise. > Not when the basis of proof requires them to actually pay close attention when they are utterly unwilling to do this because they are so sure that I must be wrong. > Here is an idea for you: maybe try being right 95% of the time, for a > while. Say two weeks, or a month. Instead of your usual, 95%+ wrong. > I have been completely right on the essence of what I have been saying for 22 years. > There is a human bias at play here and I will explain it to you: > people are more motivated to respond when you are wrong. OK some honesty, that it refreshing. > If you're 80% wrong, the 0.8 fraction of your remarks that is > wrong will get more engagement than the 0.2 that are right. > Thus it might be that, among those of your remarks which fetch > engagement, the fraction which are wrong might be amplified to > something much higher, like 0.97. > > This is why social networking algorithms are rigged to spread > rage bait: to drum up engagement. > > It's amazing you don't have the maturity to know all this on your own; > that it has to be explained to a grown up. > It is a verified fact that I have been continually correct in every essence that I have said for 22 continuous years. Now I have LLM systems that show the complete details of exactly how and why I am correct. If they were simply "yes men" they could not possibly do this. > Most of us here struggle not to say an incorrect thing. in a comp.* > newsgroup or elsewhere, yet here you practically made a sport out of it; > you say some wrong shit more times in a day than an NBA player takes a > shot at the hoop. > I say things that do not conform to conventional wisdom and people here don't even understand the reasoning behind conventional wisdom. When I point out the error in this reasoning people here are utterly helpless. The most they can do is say that I must be wrong entirely on the basis that I contradict conventional wisdom. -- 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]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web