Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #141104

Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing???

From olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, sci.math.symbolic
Subject Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing???
Date 2026-05-02 15:10 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10t5lng$2dpu2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <10t3q4s$1rl0o$1@dont-email.me> <10t3sl0$1tb81$1@dont-email.me> <10t4c5q$1rl0o$8@dont-email.me> <10t4rlr$25qek$1@dont-email.me> <10t5i4u$2c8h4$2@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't solvable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you would fucking pay close attention:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular input is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable due to the form of the input itself...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem i'm have with ur proposals is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _why do i care_ ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a rat's ass why you care.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> what are they even lying about???
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> climate change is a severe existential threat i agree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness relates 
>>>>>>>>> as neither are even mentioned in the paper
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about
>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies
>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the
>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial
>>>>>>>> measures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we further our ability in any way shape or form with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this understanding???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An infallible system of truth can be created on this
>>>>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem 
>>>>>>>>>>> remains with undecidable input...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you fucking stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same
>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing to see how 
>>>>>>>>> this is progress
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable
>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously don't get 
>>>>>>> a decision on whether DD halts or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one
>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of
>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an
>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem...
>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
>>>
>>> the halting problem was literally never viewed as a "unsolved 
>>> problem" within computing, in the first place!
>>>
>>> literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever written 
>>> classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just like u seem to 
>>> think now
>>>
>>
>> As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only
>> because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root
> 
> that's the part i'd like to solve:
> 
> how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent?
> 

THERE ARE NO FINITE STRING TRANSFORMATION RULES
FROM THE INPUT TO A HALT DECIDER TO THE ACTUAL
BEHAVIOR OF AN INPUT THAT DOES THE OPPOSITE OF
WHATEVER IT REPORTS.

Turing should have figured out that such an input
in semantically invalid in less than five minutes.

>> of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because
>> it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression
>> "unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it
>> itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent"
>>
>>> i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷
>>>
>>> at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. 
>>> instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem 
>>> being unsolvable...
>>>
>>
>> YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP
>>
>>> i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem 
>>> _more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to 
>>> prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed 
>>> semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have...
>>>
>>> idk if this means:
>>> - some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation 
>>> fundamentally inexpressible
>>> - OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable 
>>> computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us
>>> - OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable 
>>> computations to exist
>>> - OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment
>>> - OR some combination of the above
>>>
>>> i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago, 
>>> and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

This required establishing a new foundation

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 14:06 -0700
  Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 16:19 -0500
    Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 14:46 -0700
      Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 16:53 -0500
        Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 16:13 -0700
          Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 18:20 -0500
            Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 16:27 -0700
              Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 18:36 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 17:51 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 20:23 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:13 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 22:56 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 01:21 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 07:45 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:09 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 14:49 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 15:10 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 13:27 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 15:52 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 20:12 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 23:00 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 21:23 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 08:59 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-04 09:21 +0300
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 10:29 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-05 11:50 +0300
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 11:11 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-06 11:09 +0300
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 08:54 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-07 10:09 +0300
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 09:13 -0500
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-08 10:27 +0300
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 02:14 -0700
              Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:07 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:14 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:16 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-01 20:21 -0700
          Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-11 22:17 +0100
            Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:19 -0500
              Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-12 15:28 +0100
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 11:03 -0500
      Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 20:57 -0700
        Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 07:32 -0500
          Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 11:59 -0700
          Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:08 -0700
            Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 14:48 -0500
              Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 13:20 -0700
                Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 20:50 -0700
    Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2026-05-02 15:50 +0000
      Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 11:02 -0500
  Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-11 22:12 +0100
    Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:17 -0500

csiph-web