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

Groups > sci.logic > #345833

Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing???

From Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups sci.logic, comp.theory, sci.math.symbolic, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy
Subject Re: polcott wtf are you even arguing???
Followup-To comp.theory
Date 2026-05-05 11:50 +0300
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10tcb06$9tin$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (19 earlier) <10t6h8r$2kmb8$1@dont-email.me> <10t6ijs$2k0ij$8@dont-email.me> <10t7kcs$2uha2$1@dont-email.me> <10t9dso$3f2gg$1@dont-email.me> <10tae1e$3ovkb$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Followups directed to: comp.theory

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2026 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> WHAT TIME IS IT (YES OR NO) ???

"Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point
out that the question is badly formed is correct, too. If you are
designing a device that should answer questions then the answer
"Error: invalid user" could be correct.

>> If the question is
>> incorrect a correct answer says that the qestion is incorrect
> 
> Forced choice. The answer is restricted to YES/NO and must
> also be time of day.

Depends on how it is forced. The question does not force anything.
With sufficient forcing the correctness is not relevant.

>> and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question,
> 
> Type mismatch error.

Perhaps with more details.

>> perhaps proposing a correction. 
> 
> The universal truth predicate simply rejects as BAD INPUT.

A predicate cannot reject "as" anything. Its range is restricted to
{false, true}.

>> Sometimes it is useful to guess
> 
> Not allowed. Boolean functions are restricted to Boolean answers.

That does not restrict verbal answers to verbal questions.

>> the intended question and to answer that.

> How do you get a Boolean function Turing Machine
> halt decider to return "this input is bad, are you stupid?"

Usually the word "decider" means a Turing machine that always halts
and accepts if the input string is in the set of aceptable strings.
If the specification specifies anything else then the specified
machine is not a decider.

If you want a Turing machine that gives more informatino than just
one bit you may aither have multiple accept states or reject states
or both, or you can put output information to the tape, or use the
final position of the tape head, or you can use any combination of
these.

For the situation asked about you could use one reject state
for valid non-halting input and another for erroneous input (or
several others for different kinds of input error).

-- 
Mikko

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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> - 2026-05-06 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

csiph-web