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

Groups > comp.theory > #136778

Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2025 8:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>>>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that
>>>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>>>> analysis.
>>>>
>>>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.
>>>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I
>>>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>>>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>>>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>>>
>>> *Kaz cannot think outside the box*
>> 
>> Nope; I don't want to think outside of the correctness box,
>> if I can help it. Only by accident.
>> 
>
> Yet you define the correctness box by conformity to
> the preconceived notions of others.

You're one of the others from where I'm standing.

You're one of those others who just say, "don't critically
examine what I say, just accept it".

So, no, I don't take preconceived notions from /such/ others, sorry;
I'm picky about my others.

Sometimes others put together a coherent set of assumptions.
Then within those assumptions they work out a result.

No, I can't refute their /reasoning/ by choosing other assumptions.

Your modus operandi is to reject (or, more usually, fundamentally
misunderstand) the assumptions and then call the reasoning wrong since
it doesn't follow from your distorted or replaced version of the
assumptions.

>> The box where I exactly understand the definition of the problem
>> and all of its constraints, so that I'm addressing myself to the
>> problem and not something sort of resembling it, and the box in which
>> I avoid magical/wishful thinking.
>> 
>
> Yet only within the conventional analytical framework,
> viewing alternative ways of looking at the same things
> as inherently erroneous.

Using the same same name for two different entities, in the same
argument, while pretending they are one entity, is not a "usefully
unconventional" mode of operating. So no, I cannot adopt that from you.

> If there was such a thing as philosophy of computation
> I would be welcomed there for reframing the foundations
> of the theory of computation to get rid of the inherent
> incoherence that no one else bothers to notice.

Even if that somehow were achieved, you would only be choosing
different assumptions from which to work, and not challenging
any results based on their respective assumptions.

(And at that leve, you would /know/ this and refrain from
insisting that results in a framework of different assumptions
were wrongly reasoned because you like some other assumptions.)


>> Not an example of diagonalization; the Liar Paradox is not
>> a diagonal argument.
>> 
>
> It does one and for all prove that the Liar Paradox
> is not a proposition. This has never been done before.
>
>> Diagonal arguemnts patterned after Cantor do not exhibit
>> a problem that is analogous to the Liar Paradox.
>> 
>
> The Liar Paradox constructed with diagonalization L ⊣⊢ ¬Tr(┌L┐)
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/#ExisLiarLikeSent

Category inversion problem. Diagonalization may construct a Liar
paradox, but that doesn't mean everything made with diagonalization
is a Liar Paradox.

The ordinary Liar Paradox sentence is not constructed of
two parts; it deosn't use quoting where it turns out that
the quoted part it is talking about is identical to itself.

The paper you reference makes it clear that this is a required
ingredient.  You can't just use the pronoun "this sentence"; that's a
self-reference, but not acheived via diagonalization.

...

Oops, there I go, doing all the work again, while you can't fire
two brain cells together beyond formulating something casually
dismissive.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

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

Thread

Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-28 20:41 -0600
  Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 02:58 +0000
    Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 21:25 -0600
      Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 04:17 +0000
        Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 23:05 -0600
          Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 05:52 +0000
            Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 08:20 -0600
              Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 20:39 +0000
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:56 -0600
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 16:34 -0500
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 14:16 -0800
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 20:05 -0500
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 21:53 +0000
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 16:01 -0600
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 22:57 +0000
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:24 -0600
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 20:08 -0500
                Re: Done with Olcott. --- Kaz cannot think outside the box Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 20:07 -0500

csiph-web