Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135060
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence |
| Date | 2025-11-05 05:52 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10efdqa$c4n4$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (25 earlier) <10e7jpl$23jkb$1@dont-email.me> <10ebern$38k94$1@dont-email.me> <10ecik1$3i3eb$1@dont-email.me> <10edf9g$3r2m1$1@dont-email.me> <10efa37$ashj$2@dont-email.me> |
On 11/5/2025 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-11-04 18:05:34 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 11/4/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-11-03 23:45:57 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 11/2/2025 6:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-01 13:54:09 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/1/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-31 12:20:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/31/2025 6:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-30 13:03:23 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/2025 5:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-29 16:25:00 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2025 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-28 15:12:29 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-28 01:22:21 +0000, Richard Damon said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/25 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-26 17:57:16 +0000, Richard Damon said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/25 7:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-25 19:57:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2025 6:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-24 17:37:43 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2025 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-23 15:39:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-22 12:39:31 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/22/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21 15:11:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2025 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20 16:24:46 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19 15:03:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-18 10:58:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not a sense of "proof". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the correct way to do a proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A way to do is not a sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conventional way to do proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concludes that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within its rules if the Moon is made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from green >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheese and the Moon is not made from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green cheese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this proves that Donald Trump is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lord and savior Jesus Christ. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the empirical falct that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody has verified all of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. the Moon is made from green cheese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. the Moon is not made from grenn cheese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Donald Trump is not the Lord and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saviour Jesus Christ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the same time supports the idea that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventiona wya to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do proofs is correct and trustworthy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we require that correct reasoning is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical entailment from basic facts the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explosion ceases to exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if you exclude from "correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasioning" some reasning that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually is correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no counter-example that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can show there are any gaps in the body >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that begins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a consistent set of basic facts and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment to these facts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no language that begins with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent set of basic facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and only applies semantic logical entailment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to those facts and can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express all of human knowledge without any gaps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A subset of formalized English does do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has ever presented such subset. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT rewords my words into that subset. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your words have much less material than all human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any gaps. Therefore it is impossible to verify >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have told >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every necessary word to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Categorically exhaustive reasoning reverse-engineers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the required architecture of the system. Wittgenstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did this on Gödel https://www.liarparadox.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and he was so succinct eliminate the convoluted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mess of Gödel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers that people mistook his succinct analysis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as simplistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understanding what Gödel was really saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, an expectable consequence of ignoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential aspects is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel numbers are merely the ridiculously convoluted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that Gödel added the functionality of this simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operator: ⊢ to a formal language woefully too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inexpressive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natural numbers are one of the best understood topics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of mathematics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore restricting the assumptions to natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers provdes the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for the most interesting result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course one can ask whether one can prove a similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. It is much simpler to express claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proofs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fimite strings as thats how they are usually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed anyway. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that requires that one first constructs a theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we can show a direct one-to-one mapping of finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings in a finite alphabet to natural numbers (it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just becomes the notational base for the numbers). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's true, and I would prefer that rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel's mapping. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proof of Gödel's theorem is simpler if the number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of symbols in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the alphabet is prime even if that would mean that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the symbols >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are unused. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Godel's Theorem doesn't need the number of symbols to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime, it uses prime numbers to number the symbols, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime powers for the position. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And consequently Gödel's example of an undecidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula is more complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than needed. Which doesn't really matter as the complex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden behind definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> asserts its own unprovability. 15 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Gödel 1931:40-41) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> G := (F ⊬ G) // Olcott's Minimal Type Theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2 // YACC BNF of MTT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel, Kurt 1931. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematica And Related Systems >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you agree that I proved 1931 Incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel's G when boiled down to its barest essence is simply >>>>>>>>>>>> semantically >>>>>>>>>>>> unsound the same way the Liar Paradox is unsound. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As yousually your "in other words" is a lie. Existence of a >>>>>>>>>>> simpler proof >>>>>>>>>>> does not make the original one incorrect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My words are true within your words: >>>>>>>>>> "Nice to see that you don't disagree." >>>>>>>>>> If you didn't mean that then you should not have said that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did not say nor mean "you did not disagree with anything". >>>>>>>>> The usual >>>>>>>>> meaning of what I said is that you don't disagree with what I >>>>>>>>> said in >>>>>>>>> my previous message about the complexity of Gödel's sentence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The complexity of Gödel's sentence is nuts. >>>>>>>> G := (F ⊬ G) Just detect the cycle in this >>>>>>>> and Gödel is refuted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice to see that you still don't disagree with my comment about the >>>>>>> complexity of Gödel's sentence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet I absolutely do disagree. >>>>> >>>>> OK, you think Gödel's numbering scheme is simple. >>>> >>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its >>>> own unprovability. 15 ... (Gödel 1931:40-41) >>>> >>>> It totally hides the details that proof his theorem is unsound. >>> >>> You have never revealed any unsound detail of the proof, not even >>> whether it uses a false premise or an invalid inference. >> >> The details of the proof that use Gödel numbers as their >> primary basis hide the underlying semantics about exactly >> what unprovable in F actually means. > > No, they don't. That is very clearly expressed. > They don't answer the question why and how is G unprovable in F their answer is that there is some number that some how says so. ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. 15 ... (Gödel 1931:40-41) Gödel, Kurt 1931. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And Related Systems G := (F ⊬ G) is unprovable in F because it has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence. This is the same thing as a infinite loop in a program that is supposed to produce a result. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The halting problem breaks with reality olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 19:37 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-13 19:21 -0700
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 21:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-13 19:31 -0700
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 21:48 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-13 19:55 -0700
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 22:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-13 20:10 -0700
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 22:17 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-13 20:54 -0700
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 23:37 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-13 22:45 -0700
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-13 22:52 -0700
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-14 18:12 +0000
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-14 12:53 +0300
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality --- confirmed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-14 11:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality --- confirmed Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-15 11:49 +0300
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality --- confirmed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 07:21 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality --- confirmed Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-16 11:38 +0300
The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 08:57 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 14:07 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-17 11:32 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-17 10:06 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-18 12:30 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 05:58 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-19 11:44 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 10:03 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 12:55 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-20 11:55 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 11:24 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-21 12:31 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 10:11 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 13:38 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 22:13 +0000
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 20:46 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-22 12:23 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 07:39 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-23 13:02 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 10:39 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 11:57 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-24 10:48 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-24 12:41 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-25 14:57 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 14:53 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 13:03 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-26 13:34 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 11:24 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-24 10:46 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-24 12:37 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-25 14:59 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 14:57 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-25 21:27 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-26 13:44 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-26 13:57 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-27 11:45 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 08:56 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 17:15 +0000
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 12:22 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 18:54 +0000
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-27 21:26 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-28 11:54 +0200
Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 10:07 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-28 21:57 -0400
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:43 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:22 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 12:47 -0700
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:37 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 07:54 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:02 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:09 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:10 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:50 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:41 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 17:40 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-04 00:29 +0000
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 18:32 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 01:59 +0000
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:51 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 11:45 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-05 12:46 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 05:55 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-06 10:35 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 05:03 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:14 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 07:00 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:34 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 07:47 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-09 12:19 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:46 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-05 12:47 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-27 21:22 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-28 11:58 +0200
Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 10:12 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-28 21:57 -0400
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:53 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:26 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-29 21:46 -0400
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:44 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 08:01 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:10 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:18 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:16 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:52 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:43 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 17:41 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:53 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:45 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:25 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:50 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 08:03 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:15 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:20 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:18 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:54 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:45 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 17:45 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:56 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 12:05 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-05 12:49 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 05:52 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-06 10:39 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 05:08 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:21 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 07:31 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:37 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-28 21:57 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:56 +0200
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-14 18:09 +0000
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-17 12:13 -0400
csiph-web