Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #141131
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, sci.math.symbolic |
| Subject | Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing??? |
| Followup-To | sci.logic |
| Date | 2026-05-04 09:21 +0300 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10t9dso$3f2gg$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <10t5o64$2egrm$1@dont-email.me> <10t6efr$2k0ij$1@dont-email.me> <10t6h8r$2kmb8$1@dont-email.me> <10t6ijs$2k0ij$8@dont-email.me> <10t7kcs$2uha2$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
Followups directed to: sci.logic
On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote: > On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>> >>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>> >>>>> Why can't you tell me the numeric value >>>>> of the square-root of a dead chicken? >>>>> Is the question incorrect or are you stupid? >>>>> >>>> >>>> you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want, >>>> >>> >>> It is an accurate analogy. >> >> i can't agree > All incorrect questions are the same in that they > are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers. There is a correct answer to every question. If the question is incorrect a correct answer says that the qestion is incorrect and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question, perhaps proposing a correction. Sometimes it is useful to guess the intended question and to answer that. >>> >>>> but asking whether a turing machine halts or not is not a category >>>> error. any real turing machine either belongs to the set of halting >>>> machines or it doesn't. that's a truth by the law of excluded >>>> middle, and if u don't agree then ur just wrong. >>>> >>> >>> It never has been about halting machines it >>> has always been about semantic properties of >>> finite strings. >> >> ...where the finite string encodes a turing machine, > > One indirect reference away from the machine itself. > >> and the semantic property is in regards to the behavior of that >> encoded machine... >> > > The semantic property is the behavior that the finite > string specifies. It is common knowledge across all > of proof theoretic semantics that proofs of inputs must > be finite or input is invalid. > >>> >>>> and in fact we already /know/ DD belongs to the set of halting >>>> machines, something i've seen you agree to just a few months ago >>>> >>>> u just keep not responding to that agreed fact, and that does not >>>> bode well for whatever it is ur tryin to peddle in the moment. >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Mikko
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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