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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gcd34$2gevj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641329 |
On 11/28/2025 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17: >> On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >>>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused >>>>>>> on your >>>>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>>>> is closed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>>>> >>>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>>>> >>>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >>>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >>>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >>>>> problem. >>>> >>>> That is inaccurate. >>> >>> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem >>> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations >>> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. >>> >> >> It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately >> self-contradictory specification. > > If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point > to say "specifies to its decider". That DD simulated by HHH never stops running unless aborted by HHH proves that the input to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior. The caller of a function is never an argument to this same function. The DD executed in main that calls HHH(DD) is not the same DD as the one that HHH simulates. > If D specifies a halting behaviour > it specifies it both to its normal execution environment and to every > decider, otherwise it specifies non-halting behaviour both to its > normal execution environment and its decider. If it specifies one > behaviour to one and a diffetent behaviour to the other then it is > ambiguous. Becauyse that is what the words mean. > -- 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251128091227.273@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641344 |
On 2025-11-28, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > That DD simulated by HHH never stops running > unless aborted by HHH proves that the input > to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior. No, it doesn't because the non-halting version behavior requires a non-aborting version HHH, whch is what HHH is avoiding being. In your program, you had to put in a cheat flag called Root which makes the first invocation of HHH behave like an aborting version and subsequent invocations behave like non-aborting. That splits the behavior of DD into two variants, as you say. If you dynamically alter HHH from aborting to non-aborting, of course DD is dynamically altered from terminating to non-terminating. Unfortunately, it is not valid; it amounts of equvocation over symbols. You continue to use 'HHH' as if that symbol refers to a single function with a single ebehavior, and likewise 'DD'. Your HHH.aborting(DD.original) is returning 0 to indicate that DD.altered (which is simulated by HHH.nonaborting, is non-terminating. This is correct for DD.altered, but is the wrong answer for DD.original. HHH.aborting(DD.original) is tasked with answering DD.original, for which the correct answer is 1. > The caller of a function is never an argument to > this same function. That is just demented nonsense. > The DD executed in main that > calls HHH(DD) is not the same DD as the one that > HHH simulates. It can be the same and must be the same. If it is not the same in your program, you're not disproving anything. -- 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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10gdetv$2t12t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641353 |
On 11/28/2025 9:22 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-28, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> That DD simulated by HHH never stops running >> unless aborted by HHH proves that the input >> to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior. > > No, it doesn't because the non-halting version behavior requires a > non-aborting version HHH, whch is what HHH is avoiding being. > > In your program, you had to put in a cheat flag called Root > which makes the first invocation of HHH behave like an aborting > version and subsequent invocations behave like non-aborting. > > That splits the behavior of DD into two variants, as you say. > > If you dynamically alter HHH from aborting to non-aborting, > of course DD is dynamically altered from terminating to non-terminating. That sure sounds a bit like by fuzzer... So, PO HHH does hit halt )and_ non-halt of DD, and PO says it does not halt? Strange to me. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10gef3e$383hj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641344 |
olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.54: > On 11/28/2025 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17: >>> On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused >>>>>>>> on your >>>>>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>>>>> is closed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >>>>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >>>>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting >>>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> That is inaccurate. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem >>>> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations >>>> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. >>>> >>> >>> It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately >>> self-contradictory specification. >> >> If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point >> to say "specifies to its decider". > > That DD simulated by HHH never stops running > unless aborted by HHH proves that the input > to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior. That DD halts when executed by a C conforming execution environment proves that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting behaviour. If the DD simulated by HHH specifies a different behaviour then the DD simulated by HHH is not the DD given as the input. If the answer returned by HHH(DD) does not mean "halts" then HHH is not a halt decider nor a partial halt decider. > The caller of a function is never an argument to > this same function. A C function cannot have any function as an argument, only a pointer to a function of a particular type. A pointer to any function of the right type can be given as the argument, including the a pointer to the calling function. > The DD executed in main that > calls HHH(DD) is not the same DD as the one that > HHH simulates. However, it is the one that is geven as the input in HHH(DD). -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gf7q8$3hehl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641388 |
On 11/29/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.54: >> On 11/28/2025 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17: >>>> On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser >>>>>>>>> focused on your >>>>>>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>>>>>> is closed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>>>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>>>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine >>>>>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the >>>>>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the >>>>>>> halting >>>>>>> problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is inaccurate. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem >>>>> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations >>>>> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately >>>> self-contradictory specification. >>> >>> If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point >>> to say "specifies to its decider". >> >> That DD simulated by HHH never stops running >> unless aborted by HHH proves that the input >> to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior. > > That DD halts when executed by a C conforming execution environment > proves that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting behaviour. Yes if you are stupid enough to believe that the caller of a function is always one-and-the-same-thing as the argument to this dame function. > If > the DD simulated by HHH specifies a different behaviour then the DD > simulated by HHH is not the DD given as the input. If the answer > returned by HHH(DD) does not mean "halts" then HHH is not a halt > decider nor a partial halt decider. > >> The caller of a function is never an argument to >> this same function. > > A C function cannot have any function as an argument, only a pointer > to a function of a particular type. A pointer to any function of the > right type can be given as the argument, including the a pointer to > the calling function. > >> The DD executed in main that >> calls HHH(DD) is not the same DD as the one that >> HHH simulates. > > However, it is the one that is geven as the input in HHH(DD). > -- 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 | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QiIWQ.43765$zoq5.40749@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #641409 |
On 11/29/25 11:42 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/29/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.54: >>> On 11/28/2025 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17: >>>>> On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser >>>>>>>>>> focused on your >>>>>>>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>>>>>>> is closed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>>>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>>>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>>>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>>>>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>>>>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing >>>>>>>> machine >>>>>>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the >>>>>>>> halting >>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is inaccurate. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem >>>>>> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations >>>>>> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately >>>>> self-contradictory specification. >>>> >>>> If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point >>>> to say "specifies to its decider". >>> >>> That DD simulated by HHH never stops running >>> unless aborted by HHH proves that the input >>> to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior. >> >> That DD halts when executed by a C conforming execution environment >> proves that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting behaviour. > > Yes if you are stupid enough to believe that the caller > of a function is always one-and-the-same-thing as the > argument to this dame function. No always, but can be, and in this case is. IF you think that the function pointed to by passing the parameter DD to HHH is a different function then the one that was calling it, you aren't talking about C, and are showing you are just a pathological liar. The problem is you are just so stupid you think you can just redefine the meaning of words, which means you logic is NOT build of semantics, but on lies. > >> If >> the DD simulated by HHH specifies a different behaviour then the DD >> simulated by HHH is not the DD given as the input. If the answer >> returned by HHH(DD) does not mean "halts" then HHH is not a halt >> decider nor a partial halt decider. >> >>> The caller of a function is never an argument to >>> this same function. >> >> A C function cannot have any function as an argument, only a pointer >> to a function of a particular type. A pointer to any function of the >> right type can be given as the argument, including the a pointer to >> the calling function. >> >>> The DD executed in main that >>> calls HHH(DD) is not the same DD as the one that >>> HHH simulates. >> >> However, it is the one that is geven as the input in HHH(DD). >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6f8930a7-9708-4bba-8d5c-fa58dac78745@iki.fi> |
| In reply to | #641409 |
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.42: > On 11/29/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.54: >>> On 11/28/2025 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17: >>>>> On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser >>>>>>>>>> focused on your >>>>>>>>>> own psychotic nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject >>>>>>>>>>> is closed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whaaat ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>>>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is. >>>>>>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns, >>>>>>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this; >>>>>>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the >>>>>>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's >>>>>>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing >>>>>>>> machine >>>>>>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the >>>>>>>> halting >>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is inaccurate. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem >>>>>> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations >>>>>> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately >>>>> self-contradictory specification. >>>> >>>> If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point >>>> to say "specifies to its decider". >>> >>> That DD simulated by HHH never stops running >>> unless aborted by HHH proves that the input >>> to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior. >> >> That DD halts when executed by a C conforming execution environment >> proves that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting behaviour. > > Yes if you are stupid enough to believe that the caller > of a function is always one-and-the-same-thing as the > argument to this dame function. Shoud that response be rejectd as an ad nominem or as a straw man? Anyway, given that HHH is what it is in GithHub, the C semantics say that the argument to HHH is a pointer to DD and that DD halts. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5pjg$o1v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641125 |
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. -- 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 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_yz5rcjCtXDEgMAxNZLhlwVNGzM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641134 |
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. Gödel’s theorem doesn’t break just because you ran out of vocabulary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5rqi$1c37$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641137 |
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. news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > -- 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 03:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8fk5SQaypu2aMleMy4WLwWYPglc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641158 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 04:22, olcott a écrit : > 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. > > news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com > On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> The whole point is that D simulated by H > >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated > >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > > You emit a bunch of trivialities AND lies. Agreeing with you on trivialities does not mean we agree on your lies; Same for Ben. You'll burn in HELL!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125192647.398@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641158 |
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". -- 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 | 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5sev$1if1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641163 |
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. -- 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 03:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Rj3uNTOMoJLoI0sB0d00osSe9Ok@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641168 |
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!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5tdf$1up8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641169 |
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 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. -- 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 03:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <B3gX6C-y4auIQ3yI7zMaAEPy4mU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641172 |
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. The input D really does specify non-halting behavior — that’s why the diagonal argument works. If you forbid programs that refer to H, you are not refuting the halting problem; you are removing the very inputs the theorem uses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1LdUWajwanyRgP0_EtOiTsaqJ2Y@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641174 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5v28$2g0i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641175 |
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. Every verbalized thought than anyone has ever had or ever will have before the dying Sun consumes the Earth is also a finite set. -- 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 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZQVJ6Qc2NG2_NsliLjFFn156yvE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641180 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 05:18, olcott a écrit : > 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. > > Every verbalized thought than anyone has ever > had or ever will have before the dying Sun > consumes the Earth is also a finite set. So no eternal life in Heaven then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8p6p$14eiv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641181 |
On 11/25/2025 8:21 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 05:18, olcott a écrit : >> 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. >> >> Every verbalized thought than anyone has ever >> had or ever will have before the dying Sun >> consumes the Earth is also a finite set. > > So no eternal life in Heaven then? > > ;^D Interesting comment. PO's body on earth will eventually die (like all of us containers), but even after destruction of his body/container, body, on earth. He will still post to USENET? ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web