Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #641072 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8p2q$14eiv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641180 |
On 11/25/2025 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:58 PM, Python wrote: >> BTW you should think about what Ben Bacarisse once wrote: >> >> The set of all functions from ℕ to ℕ is uncountable (as large as the >> real numbers), while the set of all finite programs is only countable, >> so there are far more possible functions than there are programs to >> compute them; this guarantees that most functions are uncomputable >> and, more generally, that no finite formal system or algorithmic >> procedure can cover “all” functions, all truths, or all behaviors >> describable over the naturals—so whenever someone claims to have a >> universal decider, a complete semantic engine, or a single system that >> captures all “objects of thought,” they are implicitly pretending that >> countably many programs can represent uncountably many functions, >> which is mathematically impossible. >> >> The "halting problem" is actually only a way to confirm this with a >> specific case. >> >> > > The entire body of atomic facts of the world > is a finite set that can be syntactically > formalized as Rudolf Carnap Meaning Postulates. Moron. Let me guess you would hard code it to where PO = a God, a demigod, a kind of god, god like? > > Every verbalized thought than anyone has ever > had or ever will have before the dying Sun > consumes the Earth is also a finite set. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g5v9a$3u8av$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641175 |
On 11/25/25 7:58 PM, Python wrote: > BTW you should think about what Ben Bacarisse once wrote: > > The set of all functions from ℕ to ℕ is uncountable (as large as the > real numbers), while the set of all finite programs is only countable, > so there are far more possible functions than there are programs to > compute them; this guarantees that most functions are uncomputable and, > more generally, that no finite formal system or algorithmic procedure > can cover “all” functions, all truths, or all behaviors describable over > the naturals—so whenever someone claims to have a universal decider, a > complete semantic engine, or a single system that captures all “objects > of thought,” they are implicitly pretending that countably many programs > can represent uncountably many functions, which is mathematically > impossible. > > The "halting problem" is actually only a way to confirm this with a > specific case. u don't need undecidable machines (that are actually hypothetical) to confirm uncomputable functions that is also something i stumbled upon in my musings -- 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 | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9MIa-HOoIg7DLKOJZ1oaSLk9k3w@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641182 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 05:22, dart200 a écrit : > On 11/25/25 7:58 PM, Python wrote: >> BTW you should think about what Ben Bacarisse once wrote: >> >> The set of all functions from ℕ to ℕ is uncountable (as large as the >> real numbers), while the set of all finite programs is only countable, >> so there are far more possible functions than there are programs to >> compute them; this guarantees that most functions are uncomputable and, >> more generally, that no finite formal system or algorithmic procedure >> can cover “all” functions, all truths, or all behaviors describable over >> the naturals—so whenever someone claims to have a universal decider, a >> complete semantic engine, or a single system that captures all “objects >> of thought,” they are implicitly pretending that countably many programs >> can represent uncountably many functions, which is mathematically >> impossible. >> >> The "halting problem" is actually only a way to confirm this with a >> specific case. > > u don't need undecidable machines (that are actually hypothetical) to > confirm uncomputable functions > > that is also something i stumbled upon in my musings So ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g617n$32ri$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641184 |
On 11/25/25 8:23 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 05:22, dart200 a écrit : >> On 11/25/25 7:58 PM, Python wrote: >>> BTW you should think about what Ben Bacarisse once wrote: >>> >>> The set of all functions from ℕ to ℕ is uncountable (as large as the >>> real numbers), while the set of all finite programs is only >>> countable, so there are far more possible functions than there are >>> programs to compute them; this guarantees that most functions are >>> uncomputable and, more generally, that no finite formal system or >>> algorithmic procedure can cover “all” functions, all truths, or all >>> behaviors describable over the naturals—so whenever someone claims to >>> have a universal decider, a complete semantic engine, or a single >>> system that captures all “objects of thought,” they are implicitly >>> pretending that countably many programs can represent uncountably >>> many functions, which is mathematically impossible. >>> >>> The "halting problem" is actually only a way to confirm this with a >>> specific case. >> >> u don't need undecidable machines (that are actually hypothetical) to >> confirm uncomputable functions >> >> that is also something i stumbled upon in my musings > > So ? the "halting problem" is not the only way to confirm a specific case of an uncomputable function, and therefore it is not necessary for that reasoning in fact, the very first example of an uncomputable function was not an undecidable paradox like the halting paradox, read the first couple paragraphs of §8 from his 1936 paper -- 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 | 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8pal$14eiv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641187 |
On 11/25/2025 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/25/25 8:23 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 05:22, dart200 a écrit : >>> On 11/25/25 7:58 PM, Python wrote: >>>> BTW you should think about what Ben Bacarisse once wrote: >>>> >>>> The set of all functions from ℕ to ℕ is uncountable (as large as the >>>> real numbers), while the set of all finite programs is only >>>> countable, so there are far more possible functions than there are >>>> programs to compute them; this guarantees that most functions are >>>> uncomputable and, more generally, that no finite formal system or >>>> algorithmic procedure can cover “all” functions, all truths, or all >>>> behaviors describable over the naturals—so whenever someone claims >>>> to have a universal decider, a complete semantic engine, or a single >>>> system that captures all “objects of thought,” they are implicitly >>>> pretending that countably many programs can represent uncountably >>>> many functions, which is mathematically impossible. >>>> >>>> The "halting problem" is actually only a way to confirm this with a >>>> specific case. >>> >>> u don't need undecidable machines (that are actually hypothetical) to >>> confirm uncomputable functions >>> >>> that is also something i stumbled upon in my musings >> >> So ? > > the "halting problem" is not the only way to confirm a specific case of > an uncomputable function, When shall your body on Earth halt? and therefore it is not necessary for that > reasoning > > in fact, the very first example of an uncomputable function was not an > undecidable paradox like the halting paradox, read the first couple > paragraphs of §8 from his 1936 paper >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5uc5$29d2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641174 |
On 11/25/2025 9:53 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 04:50, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 9:36 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 04:33, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 9:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:46 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:45, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>>>>> states. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because you have proven to be a despicable lying bass turd >>>>>>>> I will no longer discuss the halting problem with you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter, declaring victory by calling people names is not a >>>>>>> mathematical >>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> He agreed with me right here and tried to get away >>>>>> with lying about it ever since. >>>>> >>>>> Every time you've brought that up, I've reaffirmed my >>>>> agreement in those points. That's what you call "lying". >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you agree with both mutually exclusive statements >>>> that is lying. >>> >>> Like that deciding that a non terminating program is terminating :-) ? >>> >>> HELL for YOU!!! >>> >>> >> >> You have to take my words with 100% perfect > > I did. > >> precision with no paraphrasing allowed because >> that ALWAYS results in the strawman error. >> >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* >> >> The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it >> requires a halt decider to report on anything >> besides what its actual input actually specifies. > > Peter, the halting problem does not ask H to guess anything beyond its > input. Spend 20,000 hours on it and see if you still think this is true. > The input D really does specify non-halting behavior — that’s why the > diagonal argument works. > *No that is not at all the conventional view* The conventional view is that both halting and non-halting are impossible to decide because the "input" does the opposite of whatever the decider decides. > If you forbid programs that refer to H, you are not refuting the halting > problem; > you are removing the very inputs the theorem uses. After you understand what the conventional view really is we might make some progress on this. Ultimately I am proving that the halting problem itself is incorrect. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r35FxBvhX6UWI3BRhtR8l0ChzWc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641177 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit : > After you understand what the conventional view > really is we might make some progress on this. The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have no choice about it. > Ultimately I am proving that the halting problem > itself is incorrect. A sensible problem cannot be "incorrect". You are "incorrect".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g5vbt$3u8av$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641179 |
On 11/25/25 8:11 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit : >> After you understand what the conventional view >> really is we might make some progress on this. > > The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have no > choice about it. and yet it really doesn't cause semantic paradoxes have nothing to do with the underlying algos u assert aren't possible, as they can be constructed with total disregard to the semantic property being computed > >> Ultimately I am proving that the halting problem >> itself is incorrect. > > A sensible problem cannot be "incorrect". > > You are "incorrect". -- 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 | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <E5BSZshEhlSVczNqe4Ek2s0iOKE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641183 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 05:23, dart200 a écrit : > On 11/25/25 8:11 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit : >>> After you understand what the conventional view >>> really is we might make some progress on this. >> >> The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have no >> choice about it. > > and yet it really doesn't cause semantic paradoxes have nothing to do > with the underlying algos u assert aren't possible, as they can be > constructed with total disregard to the semantic property being computed This didn't parse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g619i$32ri$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641185 |
On 11/25/25 8:24 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 05:23, dart200 a écrit : >> On 11/25/25 8:11 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit : >>>> After you understand what the conventional view >>>> really is we might make some progress on this. >>> >>> The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have >>> no choice about it. >> >> and yet it really doesn't cause semantic paradoxes have nothing to do >> with the underlying algos u assert aren't possible, as they can be >> constructed with total disregard to the semantic property being computed > > This didn't parse. the undecidability has nothing to do with any particular aglorithm -- 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 | 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8pfr$14eiv$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641188 |
On 11/25/2025 8:56 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/25/25 8:24 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 05:23, dart200 a écrit : >>> On 11/25/25 8:11 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit : >>>>> After you understand what the conventional view >>>>> really is we might make some progress on this. >>>> >>>> The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have >>>> no choice about it. >>> >>> and yet it really doesn't cause semantic paradoxes have nothing to do >>> with the underlying algos u assert aren't possible, as they can be >>> constructed with total disregard to the semantic property being computed >> >> This didn't parse. > > the undecidability has nothing to do with any particular aglorithm > When does a server stop responding to you, Olcotts cut of line is approaching before new years this year. Also, how long is a piece of string?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g74a1$g0fs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641179 |
On 11/25/2025 10:11 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit : >> After you understand what the conventional view >> really is we might make some progress on this. > > The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have no > choice about it. > >> Ultimately I am proving that the halting problem >> itself is incorrect. > > A sensible problem cannot be "incorrect". > What seems to be a sensible problem that has incoherence that no one bothered to notice is still incorrect because it is incoherent. First you must understand this: *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* Then you can understand this: The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it requires a halt decider to report on anything besides what its actual input actually specifies. > You are "incorrect". > > > > > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10g751s$fhqt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641207 |
On 11/26/2025 9:53 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 10:11 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit : >>> After you understand what the conventional view >>> really is we might make some progress on this. >> >> The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have >> no choice about it. >> >>> Ultimately I am proving that the halting problem >>> itself is incorrect. >> >> A sensible problem cannot be "incorrect". >> > > What seems to be a sensible problem that has > incoherence that no one bothered to notice is > still incorrect because it is incoherent. > > First you must understand this: > *The input to HHH(DD) i.e. finite string DD, which is the description of machine DD and therefore stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine DD, including the fact that it halts when executed directly. > DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR* False, see above. > > Then you can understand this: > The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it > requires a halt decider to report on anything > besides what its actual input actually specifies. False, see above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8pch$14eiv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641177 |
On 11/25/2025 8:06 PM, olcott wrote: [...] > Spend 20,000 hours on it and see if you still think > this is true. lol. Just wow. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125211627.285@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641172 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > You have to take my words with 100% perfect > precision with no paraphrasing allowed because > that ALWAYS results in the strawman error. Your words simply do not have precision to be had. You change the references of names midway through an argument! You use "isomporphic" for thngs you vaguely feel are similar. -- 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 | 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125211524.498@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641169 |
On 2025-11-26, Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 04:33, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 9:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 8:46 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:45, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>>>>>>> phobia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >>>>>>> states. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because you have proven to be a despicable lying bass turd >>>>>> I will no longer discuss the halting problem with you. >>>>> >>>>> Peter, declaring victory by calling people names is not a mathematical >>>>> argument. >>>>> >>>> >>>> He agreed with me right here and tried to get away >>>> with lying about it ever since. >>> >>> Every time you've brought that up, I've reaffirmed my >>> agreement in those points. That's what you call "lying". >>> >> >> When you agree with both mutually exclusive statements >> that is lying. > > Like that deciding that a non terminating program is terminating :-) ? But you do nothing but insist that terminating programs is nonterminating. -- 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 | 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125191002.450@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641134 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague >>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math >>> phobia. >> >> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that >> simulations that are paused still exist and have future >> states. >> > > Because you have proven to be a despicable lying bass turd > I will no longer discuss the halting problem with you. What? How is that going to work? Oh, I see; perhaps over a small number of posts, two or three, you will, for the first time, begin to discuss the Halting Problem with me, so as to establish having done it. And then turn around and cruelly snatch that away? How positively dreadful! -- 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 | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <AmCVQ.51184$liu8.24026@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #641116 |
On 11/25/25 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit : >>> >>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is >>> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates >> >> Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability. >> It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic >> incompleteness-proof shredder. >> > > The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) > where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions > of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). > > Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea > how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we > just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple > proof of its truth. Nope, just shows you can't understand the works of others. Willard Van Orman was pointing out that the word "Bachelor" has multiple meanings in natural language, and thus the statement can be ambiguous. Your problem is you THINK you know wbat words mean, and are so full of yourself, that you can't see when you are wrong. Your problem is that to you, words don't mean what they actually mean, but only the meaning you want to give them, even if that meaning is actually wrong. That make you just a pathological liar. > >> If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system would >> have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s. >> They didn’t. > > I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics > on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics > freaks them out. > > None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague > Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math > phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated. Probably more because you can't explain what others talked about, as you don't understand it yourself, and make up what it means. > >> Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization — >> it just gives it nicer types. >> > > G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) > Directed Graph of evaluation sequence > 00 ↔ 01 02 > 01 G > 02 ¬ 03 > 03 Prov 04 > 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle > > Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck > in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not. > >> Montague built a translation function. >> You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths >> disappear. >> It doesn’t. >> Only your theory does that. > > When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as > Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit > that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this > system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist. > > Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely > not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10g5mvb$3v398$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641111 |
On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>> >>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all is fixed! >>>> >>> >>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>> syntax. >> >> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is called 'Montague >> Grammar' because it is due to Richard Montague. >> >> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language (specifically >> English) semantics expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his system >> have a syntax. They also have a semantics. The two are very much >> distinct. >> > > Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of English semantics. > that is why he called it Montague Grammar. He never called it Montague Grammar; that's what it's come to be known as. > This is > all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates > that dead obviously encode English semantics > directly in the syntax. No, they do not. The stanford encyclopedia article on Montague Grammar is reasonably good. If you want to learn about this, that might be a good place to start. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/> Note that one thing this article emphasises is the importance which Montague places upon model theory. In many of your posts you've talked about making a theory which instead of relying on model theory "unifies" the syntax and semantics. Montague neither eliminates model theory nor unifies syntax and semantics (whatever that might mean). He attempts to provide a theory on natural language which treats natural language in the *same* way as the formal languages of logic and mathematics are treated. Formal languages have both syntax and semantics as separate entities, and Montague views natural language as being no different from these. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5nfb$44b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641115 |
On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>> >>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all is fixed! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>> syntax. >>> >>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is called 'Montague >>> Grammar' because it is due to Richard Montague. >>> >>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language (specifically >>> English) semantics expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his >>> system have a syntax. They also have a semantics. The two are very >>> much distinct. >>> >> >> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics > > I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of English semantics. > *Here is a concrete example* The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web