Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5olcott
+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5Ben Bacarisse
|+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5olcott
||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5Richard Damon
|||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5olcott
||| `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5Richard Damon
||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5dklei...@gmail.com
|||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5olcott
||| `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5dklei...@gmail.com
|||  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   |+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Richard Damon
|||   ||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   |||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Malcolm McLean
|||   ||||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   |||||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   ||||||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   |||||| `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   ||||||  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   ||||||   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   ||||||    `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   |||||`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Richard Damon
|||   ||||`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   |||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Andy Walker
|||   ||||+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalolcott
|||   |||||`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalRichard Damon
|||   ||||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   |||| `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Andy Walker
|||   ||||  +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   ||||  |`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Mike Terry
|||   ||||  `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   |||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Richard Damon
|||   ||| `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   |||  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   |||   `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Richard Damon
|||   ||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   || +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   || |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   || | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   || |  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   || |   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   || |    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   || |     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   || |      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   || |       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]dklei...@gmail.com
|||   || |        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   || |         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]André G. Isaak
|||   || |          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)olcott
|||   || |           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalAndré G. Isaak
|||   || |            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalolcott
|||   || |             +- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalRichard Damon
|||   || |             +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalAndré G. Isaak
|||   || |             |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalolcott
|||   || |             | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalAndré G. Isaak
|||   || |             |  +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalolcott
|||   || |             |  |+- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalAndré G. Isaak
|||   || |             |  |`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalRichard Damon
|||   || |             |  `* Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosionolcott
|||   || |             |   +- Logical Necessity and the Principle of ExplosionRichard Damon
|||   || |             |   `* Logical Necessity and the Principle of ExplosionAndré G. Isaak
|||   || |             |    `* Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosionolcott
|||   || |             |     +- Logical Necessity and the Principle of ExplosionRichard Damon
|||   || |             |     `* Logical Necessity and the Principle of ExplosionAndré G. Isaak
|||   || |             |      `* Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosionolcott
|||   || |             |       `- Logical Necessity and the Principle of ExplosionAndré G. Isaak
|||   || |             `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logicalMalcolm McLean
|||   || `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Richard Damon
|||   |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   |  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]olcott
|||   |   `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Ben Bacarisse
|||   `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]Richard Damon
||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5Ben Bacarisse
|| `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5olcott
||  `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5Ben Bacarisse
|`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 (Linz version)olcott
| +- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 (Linz version)Ben Bacarisse
| `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 (Linz version)Richard Damon
`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5Richard Damon

Pages:1234
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23277&group=comp.theory#23277

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:46:05 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:46:04 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me> <96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com> <i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com> <VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 43
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-G7KM+Ud1foZS1DtLg2+zSKAL9l08q0VGse3bM+Q/pEZYHSH8lWejWQc2HUgQ2b3mJFhOJx+0vZpApsW!xqMXMkQDdIDkkyY6++RTI13rtI2sU6BzpufvTdWxFUgcMH4/yOqZYm2xe/D6K+k1enHyt/uKQ5IA!vw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3378
 by: olcott - Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:46 UTC

On 11/10/2021 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>
>> If an X is a Y then Z is always correct when it reports that an X is a Y.
>
> This is a denial of the principle of explosion.

Yes I absolutely deny that psychotic break from the system of
Aristotle's syllogism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure

Because the syllogism always maintains a semantic connection to its
elements it prevents these psychotic breaks.

Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.

We can explain the correctness of the above in terms of the semantics of
set theory.

When we apply semantics of the principle of explosion there is no way to
explain the semantic details of why the conclusion is necessitated :
(a) The Moon is made of green cheese
(b) The Moon is not made of green cheese
(a) and (b) Necessitates 3 > 5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence#Semantic_consequence

> If Z is false then it implies
> anything including that "an X is a Y".
>
> (Q -> P and Q) entails P but (Q ->P and P) does not entail Q.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

<smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23278&group=comp.theory#23278

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:33:27 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 23:33:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="925612e2dd900e6735006c4a200b14f6";
logging-data="28244"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yZsCBIevUtNYS/PI3YZAJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:I48bBeO+kOD7I5Tbd88iC0KKyc0=
In-Reply-To: <jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Wed, 10 Nov 2021 23:33 UTC

On 2021-11-10 15:46, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> If an X is a Y then Z is always correct when it reports that an X is
>>> a Y.
>>
>> This is a denial of the principle of explosion.
>
> Yes I absolutely deny that psychotic break from the system of
> Aristotle's syllogism.

The statement in question doesn't involve an aristotelian syllogism.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>
> Because the syllogism always maintains a semantic connection to its
> elements it prevents these psychotic breaks.
>
> Major premise: All humans are mortal.
> Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
> Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
>
> We can explain the correctness of the above in terms of the semantics of
> set theory.

So how does this work for arguments which don't involve syllogisms.

> When we apply semantics of the principle of explosion there is no way to
> explain the semantic details of why the conclusion is necessitated :
> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese
> (b) The Moon is not made of green cheese
> (a) and (b) Necessitates 3 > 5

So now you're switching away from syllogisms. So how is what you write
above remotely relevant? How does one determine whether a 'semantic
connection' exists between things?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence#Semantic_consequence

I don't see how that helps you. It makes no mention of "semantic
connections".

Here are a few perfectly reasonable conditional statements. Please
explain how to determine whether a "semantic connection" exists between
the antecedent and the consequent.

If it does not rain tomorrow I will go biking.
If Trump is reelected in 2024 the United States is doomed.

You can't just introduce things like 'semantic connection' without
defining it in some coherent way.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

<smhm6c$7mq$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23279&group=comp.theory#23279

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: news.dea...@darjeeling.plus.com (Mike Terry)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 23:55:56 +0000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <smhm6c$7mq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<smh9ef$138m$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87mtmbsp5z.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<smhds5$v7n$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87h7cjsmly.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="7898"; posting-host="CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.7.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Mike Terry - Wed, 10 Nov 2021 23:55 UTC

On 10/11/2021 21:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 10/11/2021 20:59, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> [I wrote:]
>>>> [...] What is crucial to the attempt to keep the
>>>> discussion going is the fact that every man and his dog [other
>>>> sexes and animals are available] feels the need to reply.
>>> I agree with the sentiment, but I was talking about his half of the
>>> problem.
>>
>> There is no "his half" and "your half". If two people each
>> feel a compulsion to reply, then the discussion is never-ending. If
>> only one person feels that compulsion, then the discussion halts.
>> [At the moment, there seem to be at least four; in a sane world,
>> three-quarters of them would stop.]
>>
>>> What is crucial to my keeping the discussion going is
>>> something of a mystery. Maybe you have some insight into that half of
>>> the equation? I would certainly benefit from stopping.
>>
>> Sure. Before you post each article, ask yourself whether
>> you are adding anything new [or old enough to have been forgotten].
>> If the answer is "no", discard it.
>
> Not really what I was asking. I know I am adding nothing. I was
> wondering where the compulsion comes from. I can't quite work it out.
>
>> An equivalent algorithm is to
>> be ruthless about ellipsising [if that's a word] every repetition.
>> If your article then reduces to "[...]", in toto, then so be it --
>> at least it won't take long to read -- but you may well find after
>> a bit that the compulsion to post empty messages disappears. The
>> human urge is to have the last word, not to have the last "...".
>
> I don't think it's just an urge to have the last word. I feel, maybe,
> that there's some sort of intellectual injustice going on. As a former
> academic, I respect and admire people who have spent a lifetime gaining
> a deep understanding of complex subjects. To have that set against
> someone who once had an ill-educated thought in the bath is infuriating.
> I delude myself into feeling that I am defending something, and it's not
> "the truth", it's something social -- the value of intellect, study and
> hard work.

Yes, you've put that very well - I feel the same, but would have
seriously struggled in trying to express it!

Mike.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23280&group=comp.theory#23280

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:15:47 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:15:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me> <96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com> <i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com> <VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com> <jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8IQm0P8AMgWn+iM5/6Azbv431urw4mPwAPB1STdxkEOyNB72r/qGLuseaucm2YsfZYK8WUy85Ry1Y2x!qxrOn1kbdkqTuhdG9T+hydT0rg1DMqkeZHMrHkTToVyDR9tzANcuC2FHvRjCiiIezEzDrdZ4/GGp!Lg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5462
 by: olcott - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:15 UTC

On 11/10/2021 5:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-10 15:46, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> If an X is a Y then Z is always correct when it reports that an X is
>>>> a Y.
>>>
>>> This is a denial of the principle of explosion.
>>
>> Yes I absolutely deny that psychotic break from the system of
>> Aristotle's syllogism.
>
> The statement in question doesn't involve an aristotelian syllogism.

When logic diverges form the semantic anchor of the syllogism in can
have the psychotic break form correct reasoning that is most apply
expressed as the principle of explosion.

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>
>> Because the syllogism always maintains a semantic connection to its
>> elements it prevents these psychotic breaks.
>>
>> Major premise: All humans are mortal.
>> Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
>> Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
>>
>> We can explain the correctness of the above in terms of the semantics
>> of set theory.
>
> So how does this work for arguments which don't involve syllogisms.
>

When-so-ever logic diverges from semantic tautologies it errs.

>> When we apply semantics of the principle of explosion there is no way
>> to explain the semantic details of why the conclusion is necessitated :
>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese
>> (b) The Moon is not made of green cheese
>> (a) and (b) Necessitates 3 > 5
>
> So now you're switching away from syllogisms. So how is what you write
> above remotely relevant? How does one determine whether a 'semantic
> connection' exists between things?
>

The above is a correct an example of the principle of explosion.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence#Semantic_consequence
>
> I don't see how that helps you. It makes no mention of "semantic
> connections".

Semantic_consequence
Semantic_consequence
Semantic_consequence
Semantic_consequence
Semantic_consequence
Semantic_consequence

>
> Here are a few perfectly reasonable conditional statements. Please
> explain how to determine whether a "semantic connection" exists between
> the antecedent and the consequent.
>
> If it does not rain tomorrow I will go biking.
> If Trump is reelected in 2024 the United States is doomed.
>

There must be a logical necessity connection between the antecedent and
the consequent. This does not exist in the above two.

> You can't just introduce things like 'semantic connection' without
> defining it in some coherent way.

There must be a semantic logical necessity connection between the
antecedent and the consequent for the consequent to be necessitated by
its antecedent.

Within the definition of the x86 language it is logically necessary that
H(P,P)==0 is correct for every H.

This is now better explained in my updated paper on pages 3-4.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V2)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2

>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

<qOZiJ.23010$L_2.16885@fx04.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23285&group=comp.theory#23285

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7a19a873-4220-46ea-ac99-030ce3c56981n@googlegroups.com>
<VI-dnQc6NMECfRb8nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <VI-dnQc6NMECfRb8nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <qOZiJ.23010$L_2.16885@fx04.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:51:34 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 4106
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:51 UTC

On 11/10/21 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 8:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 13:37:01 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>> I, for one, am fed up with trying to explain ever more silly
>>> consequences of the initial assumption about H. The proof is simple and
>>> the contradiction entailed is obvious.
>>>
>> There seems to be an oscillating between a pure simulator and a halt
>> decider. Then recently there's been a distinction between a decider which
>> simulates its input and one which executes its input directly.
>>
>> But the core problem remains that the halt decider returns "false" for a
>> machine / program which halts. I haven't see any real advance on that,
>> and
>> as you say, it become repetitive pointing it out.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> If the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts then the transition to ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> is necessarily correct no matter what Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does. A halt decider is only
> accountable for correctly deciding the halt status of its actual input.
>

But if the machine that this input represents never halts, then H^ .q0
<H^> can NOT reach H^.qn (as that would be that machine halting).

If H^ <H^> doesn't reach H^.qn then H <H^> H^> can't reach H.qn either,
as since H^.qx has a copy of H.q0 and following they MUST behave the same.

Thus either H <H^><H^> doesn't reach qn, and thus it failed to make the
decision it needs to or H^ <H^> also reaches H^.qn and thus H^ <H^> is Halt.

Any other behavior says the H^ wasn't built by the needed rules, or that
H isn't actually aboe te be represented as the Turing Machine that is
claimed.

FAIL.

Fundamental problem:

If H <H^> <H^> decides that H^ <H^> would not halt, and go to H.qn then
H^ <H^> will go to H^.qx <H^> <H^> and then follow that exact same path
and end up at H^.qn and Halt, and thus H was wrong.

If H^ <H^> is actually non-halting then that says that H^.qx <H^><H^>
must not be able to get to H^.qn which, since H^.qx is a copy of H, that
means that H <H^> <H^> can't get to H.qn either.

All your arguments are based on two identical copies of an algorithm,
given the same input, behaving differently, which is by definition
impossible.

>>>
>>> Indeed. So tell PO that there is no string <H^>. If there were, there
>>> wold be a TM H^ halts if it does not and does not halt if it does.
>>>
>> There might be a assumption that H is a correct halt decider built into
>> PO's argument somewhere, but I haven't actually found it. However I
>> haven't been paying such close attention.
>>
>
>

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ]

<zTZiJ.57725$Wkjc.52231@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23286&group=comp.theory#23286

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<smh9ef$138m$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<8LWdnXZpSbKtsBH8nZ2dnUU7-WfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <8LWdnXZpSbKtsBH8nZ2dnUU7-WfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <zTZiJ.57725$Wkjc.52231@fx35.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:57:03 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 3217
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:57 UTC

On 11/10/21 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 2:18 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 10/11/2021 13:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> His removal of the key condition on H^ is crucial to his attempt to keep
>>> the discussion going.
>>
>>      Disagree.  What is crucial to the attempt to keep the
>> discussion going is the fact that every man and his dog [other
>> sexes and animals are available] feels the need to reply.
>>
>
> It can be objectively verified that the correct pure simulation
> of the input to H(P,P) never halts. (pages 3-4 of the new paper).
>
> It is known on the basis of logical necessity that when-so-ever
> the correctly simulated input to a halt decider never halts
> that this halt decider would always be correct when it reports
> that its input never halts.
>
> All of the current rebuttals are entirely based on denying this
> logical necessity.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V2)
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>
>

Nope, you still have the same error.

You analysis assumes that H is NEVER abort its simulation.

Then you have H abort its simulation.

This is invalid.

This means that either you have a logic error, or

Your simulation is faulty, or

You build P with a different H than is deciding it and are LYING that
you built the problem right, or

H is NOT the required computation and you are LYING that it is.

The H(P,P) inside P must behave exactly the same as the H(P,P) at the
top level deciding on P(P).

Your proof has the obvious fault that it shows that it effectively
claims that H(P,P) inside P is non-halting while the H(P,P) at the top
is Halting.

FAIL.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

<hWZiJ.57726$Wkjc.11629@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23287&group=comp.theory#23287

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <hWZiJ.57726$Wkjc.11629@fx35.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:59:57 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 4330
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:59 UTC

On 11/10/21 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/10/21 6:35 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Here is the same thing using Peter Linz notation:
>>>
>>> Oh dear, back to talking about Turing machines...
>>>
>>>> In this Linz machine:
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> it is true that the correct pure simulation of the
>>>> input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>
>>> There is no string ⟨Ĥ⟩, so there is nothing that can be simulated.  You
>>> keep removing the clause that defines Ĥ's behaviour:
>>>
>>>    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>    if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>>
>>> With that clause put back, you (well, other people at least) can see
>>> that no TM can behave like this.
>>>
>>
>> But, if you step back a bit and ask about the H^ based on a machine H
>> that CLAIMS to meet the requirements, then you can have a H^ and a <H^>.
>>
>> The issue then is you need to realize that just because you have
>> claimed that H meets the requirements doesn't make it so (and you
>> can't just stipulate that it does, as that gets you back to the empty
>> set).
>>
>> Give that it is just a claim, we can use the test to see if the claim
>> is valid, and we see that H(<H^>,<H^>) doesn't match the actual
>> behavior of H^(<H^>) so we have proved the claim invalid.
>>
>> This is in fact, exactly what Linz does. Peters problem is that he
>> seems to be having H change its definition through the proof, at one
>> point beng a pure simulator, and then at another point being a
>> simulator that aborts.
>>
>> He then ignores that fact that there is no such thing as a pure
>> simulator that aborts its simulation.
>
> In this Linz machine:
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> it is true that the correct pure simulation of the
> input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never reach its final state
> whether or not the simulating halt decider at
> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborted the simulation of its input.

Wrong, you only prove that H^ <H^> is non-halting if H never aborts its
simulation, and thus H never gets to qn, so fails to be a decider.

Once H aborts its simulation, its logic is invalid, as it was
conditioned on the assuption that H was non-aborting.

>
> This conclusively proves that this state transition
> is correct: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> As long as the halt decider Ĥ.qx reports the halt
> status of the behavior of its actual input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ then
> Ĥ.qx is necessarily correct no matter how Ĥ behaves
> in any other situation.
>

As long as H reports the behavior of its actual input when given to a
REAL UTM is it correct. If H aborts its simulation, the fact that H
never reached a halting state does NOT prove its input is non-halting.

FAIL.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

<25_iJ.30228$Bu7.1808@fx26.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23288&group=comp.theory#23288

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx26.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <25_iJ.30228$Bu7.1808@fx26.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:11:26 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5722
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:11 UTC

On 11/10/21 8:36 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 11/10/21 6:35 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Here is the same thing using Peter Linz notation:
>>> Oh dear, back to talking about Turing machines...
>>>
>>>> In this Linz machine:
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> it is true that the correct pure simulation of the
>>>> input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> There is no string ⟨Ĥ⟩, so there is nothing that can be simulated. You
>>> keep removing the clause that defines Ĥ's behaviour:
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>> With that clause put back, you (well, other people at least) can see
>>> that no TM can behave like this.
>>
>> But, if you step back a bit and ask about the H^ based on a machine H
>> that CLAIMS to meet the requirements, then you can have a H^ and a
>> <H^>.
>
> I disagree (though it's largely philosophical at this point). From the
> claim that H meets Linz's spec we can deduce all sort of things. One of
> which is that there is no string <H^>. But can also deduce any other
> contradiction you like.
>
> And that's the trouble. Anything PO says about such an H^ is validly
> entailed by the assumption. He can even claim that 1 == 0 follows from
> "Linz's specs", and he'd be right. At some stage you have to point out
> the contradictions and force PO to abandon the initial assumption.
>
> I, for one, am fed up with trying to explain ever more silly
> consequences of the initial assumption about H. The proof is simple and
> the contradiction entailed is obvious.

The difference is that PO HAS an H, so H does exist, and we can thus
build a H^ from. (This assumes we can convert is 'C Program' into some
sort of Turing Machine).

The issue is that the claimed behavior will not be true.

As we see with is current version, H(<H^><H^>) will say qn (non-halting)
ahd H^ <H^> will halt, thus showing it is wrong.

The other possibility is that due to the issues with converting his
algorithm and some of the impossibilities he is claiming, H <H^><H^> may
just be a non-halting machine because it can't recognize the copy of
itself in H^ and become the non-aborting version of H.

>
>> The issue then is you need to realize that just because you have
>> claimed that H meets the requirements doesn't make it so
>
> PO needs to realise not that the claim does not make it so but that the
> claim makes it /not/ so. It's not the same thing.
>
>> Give that it is just a claim, we can use the test to see if the claim
>> is valid, and we see that H(<H^>,<H^>) doesn't match the actual
>> behavior of H^(<H^>) so we have proved the claim invalid.
>
> Indeed. So tell PO that there is no string <H^>. If there were, there
> wold be a TM H^ halts if it does not and does not halt if it does.

Except that you can create an machine H that you can (incorrectly) claim
to meet the requirements, and thus a machine H^ can be created and thus
the string <H^> exists.

It then becomes a simple matter to run the two machines to see that H
doesn't meet the claimed requirements.

H can exist.

An H that meets the requirements doesn't.

>
> His removal of the key condition on H^ is crucial to his attempt to keep
> the discussion going. Every time that line appears, the correct
> condition must be added to it do he can't get away from the fact that no
> such H^ could exist.

Right, that line shows what H SHOULD do if it meets the requirements.

Since H^<H^> Halts, the requirements say that H <H^><H^> should go to
qy, but it goes to qn so it fails to meet the requirements.
>
>> This is in fact, exactly what Linz does. Peters problem is that he
>> seems to be having H change its definition through the proof, at one
>> point beng a pure simulator, and then at another point being a
>> simulator that aborts.
>
> What proof? Proof of what? I have seen no logically connected argument
> from PO that could pass the test of being even a very informal proof.
>

Linz proof. In the proof he makes the assumption that we can create an H
that meets the requirements, and then shows that any H that you could
crete won't meet the requirements.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23289&group=comp.theory#23289

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:20:18 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:20:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="925612e2dd900e6735006c4a200b14f6";
logging-data="16124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18E6rza/dCbzsM+51pjtQy/"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0S/B0Cvgo8nWBtoQ6PZwIlZ3+f4=
In-Reply-To: <UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:20 UTC

On 2021-11-10 17:15, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 5:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10 15:46, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If an X is a Y then Z is always correct when it reports that an X
>>>>> is a Y.
>>>>
>>>> This is a denial of the principle of explosion.
>>>
>>> Yes I absolutely deny that psychotic break from the system of
>>> Aristotle's syllogism.
>>
>> The statement in question doesn't involve an aristotelian syllogism.
>
> When logic diverges form the semantic anchor of the syllogism in can
> have the psychotic break form correct reasoning that is most apply
> expressed as the principle of explosion.

That doesn't address my point. A syllogism is only one of many different
forms of valid argument.

>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>
>>> Because the syllogism always maintains a semantic connection to its
>>> elements it prevents these psychotic breaks.
>>>
>>> Major premise: All humans are mortal.
>>> Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
>>> Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
>>>
>>> We can explain the correctness of the above in terms of the semantics
>>> of set theory.
>>
>> So how does this work for arguments which don't involve syllogisms.
>>
>
> When-so-ever logic diverges from semantic tautologies it errs.

If arguments are restricted to tautologies, then you can't get very far
with logic.

>>> When we apply semantics of the principle of explosion there is no way
>>> to explain the semantic details of why the conclusion is necessitated :
>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese
>>> (b) The Moon is not made of green cheese
>>> (a) and (b) Necessitates 3 > 5
>>
>> So now you're switching away from syllogisms. So how is what you write
>> above remotely relevant? How does one determine whether a 'semantic
>> connection' exists between things?
>>
>
> The above is a correct an example of the principle of explosion.

I know that. But on what grounds do you determine that there is not a
'semantic connection'?

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence#Semantic_consequence
>>
>> I don't see how that helps you. It makes no mention of "semantic
>> connections".
>
> Semantic_consequence
> Semantic_consequence
> Semantic_consequence
> Semantic_consequence
> Semantic_consequence
> Semantic_consequence

Yes, that's all well and good. Now please show me how the actual
*definition* given there actually helps you.

{A, ¬A } ⊢ B is valid thanks to your dreaded principle of explosion.

It also FULLY MEETS the definition of semantic consequence given in the
link you site. Do you actually read any of the things you post links to?

>>
>> Here are a few perfectly reasonable conditional statements. Please
>> explain how to determine whether a "semantic connection" exists
>> between the antecedent and the consequent.
>>
>> If it does not rain tomorrow I will go biking.
>> If Trump is reelected in 2024 the United States is doomed.
>>
>
> There must be a logical necessity connection between the antecedent and
> the consequent. This does not exist in the above two.

Again, how do you define a 'logically necessity connection'?

>> You can't just introduce things like 'semantic connection' without
>> defining it in some coherent way.
>
> There must be a semantic logical necessity connection between the
> antecedent and the consequent for the consequent to be necessitated by
> its antecedent.

Again, how do you define a 'logically necessity connection'?

> Within the definition of the x86 language it is logically necessary that
> H(P,P)==0 is correct for every H.

Of course it isn't logically necessary. For example, it is not the case
the H(P, P)==0 for the following H.

Boolean H(int *x, int *y) {
return(true);
}

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23291&group=comp.theory#23291

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:30:17 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:30:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 132
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-jb0mulXITHuVE4cD4GFiduOu7EIgCq6aeVQpaIovI1YJa4rRVJEUcr1KTFDytqaxcqv1oSmj0umLrTM!ytQB/KbGYAXuylHHsNCY/vqVx432RBR6pIk+V93XCs2TWblE19W9ZS29JXXMI0hots3HUMYtivr2!yA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6723
 by: olcott - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:30 UTC

On 11/10/2021 7:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-10 17:15, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 5:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-10 15:46, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2021 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If an X is a Y then Z is always correct when it reports that an X
>>>>>> is a Y.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a denial of the principle of explosion.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I absolutely deny that psychotic break from the system of
>>>> Aristotle's syllogism.
>>>
>>> The statement in question doesn't involve an aristotelian syllogism.
>>
>> When logic diverges form the semantic anchor of the syllogism in can
>> have the psychotic break form correct reasoning that is most apply
>> expressed as the principle of explosion.
>
> That doesn't address my point. A syllogism is only one of many different
> forms of valid argument.
>
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>
>>>> Because the syllogism always maintains a semantic connection to its
>>>> elements it prevents these psychotic breaks.
>>>>
>>>> Major premise: All humans are mortal.
>>>> Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
>>>> Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
>>>>
>>>> We can explain the correctness of the above in terms of the
>>>> semantics of set theory.
>>>
>>> So how does this work for arguments which don't involve syllogisms.
>>>
>>
>> When-so-ever logic diverges from semantic tautologies it errs.
>
> If arguments are restricted to tautologies, then you can't get very far
> with logic.
>
>>>> When we apply semantics of the principle of explosion there is no
>>>> way to explain the semantic details of why the conclusion is
>>>> necessitated :
>>>> (a) The Moon is made of green cheese
>>>> (b) The Moon is not made of green cheese
>>>> (a) and (b) Necessitates 3 > 5
>>>
>>> So now you're switching away from syllogisms. So how is what you
>>> write above remotely relevant? How does one determine whether a
>>> 'semantic connection' exists between things?
>>>
>>
>> The above is a correct an example of the principle of explosion.
>
> I know that. But on what grounds do you determine that there is not a
> 'semantic connection'?
>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence#Semantic_consequence
>>>
>>> I don't see how that helps you. It makes no mention of "semantic
>>> connections".
>>
>> Semantic_consequence
>> Semantic_consequence
>> Semantic_consequence
>> Semantic_consequence
>> Semantic_consequence
>> Semantic_consequence
>
> Yes, that's all well and good. Now please show me how the actual
> *definition* given there actually helps you.
>
> {A, ¬A } ⊢ B is valid thanks to your dreaded principle of explosion.
>
> It also FULLY MEETS the definition of semantic consequence given in the
> link you site. Do you actually read any of the things you post links to?
>

Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
(a) the Moon is made from green cheese
(b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
(a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.

What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???

>>>
>>> Here are a few perfectly reasonable conditional statements. Please
>>> explain how to determine whether a "semantic connection" exists
>>> between the antecedent and the consequent.
>>>
>>> If it does not rain tomorrow I will go biking.
>>> If Trump is reelected in 2024 the United States is doomed.
>>>
>>
>> There must be a logical necessity connection between the antecedent
>> and the consequent. This does not exist in the above two.
>
> Again, how do you define a 'logically necessity connection'?
>
>>> You can't just introduce things like 'semantic connection' without
>>> defining it in some coherent way.
>>
>> There must be a semantic logical necessity connection between the
>> antecedent and the consequent for the consequent to be necessitated by
>> its antecedent.
>
> Again, how do you define a 'logically necessity connection'?
>
>> Within the definition of the x86 language it is logically necessary
>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for every H.
>
> Of course it isn't logically necessary. For example, it is not the case
> the H(P, P)==0 for the following H.
>
> Boolean H(int *x, int *y) {
>    return(true);
> }
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<HA_iJ.23181$L_2.13206@fx04.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23292&group=comp.theory#23292

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <HA_iJ.23181$L_2.13206@fx04.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:45:11 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 2676
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:45 UTC

On 11/10/21 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>
> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>

I guess you don't understand that basic principle that once you have ONE
logical contradiction taken as true, it si possible to prove ANY
statement, that has a truth value, from that contradiction.

My guess is you just don't understand enough about how to build a real
logical argument to understand how to do that.

I will admit that I haven't studied the proof of this, but I think I see
how you could do something like that.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23293&group=comp.theory#23293

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:51:26 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:51:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="925612e2dd900e6735006c4a200b14f6";
logging-data="15373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NWCF8Vl5W3oQzeBTXPXgI"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AOO/6o9cvP8QWTX3EZod2d6Kzd8=
In-Reply-To: <adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:51 UTC

On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:

> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>
> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???

How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when you
refuse to define what is meant by this.

So far, you've only offered vague hints such as

"When-so-ever logic diverges from semantic tautologies it errs."

The above argument *IS* a semantic tautology, so that doesn't help.

You've referred to "semantic consequences", but gave no explanation.

The conclusion of the above argument *IS* a semantic consequence of its
premises, so that doesn't help.

You were the one who introduced the term "semantic logical necessity
condition". I asked *you* to define it, and you respond by asking *me*
to identify what the semantic logical necessity condition is in the
above. How should I know? I have no idea what "semantic logical
necessity condition" is supposed to mean and you refuse to give a
definition.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23294&group=comp.theory#23294

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:55:34 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:55:33 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zRbNiuSXxD2JfnvztqAPROz+nIB1f/8AH+F5TDNFPW/FOMehvxEGMqDRCvgUT3KhVWaYi/vOXshwQQG!F371o7q3tRvNVhc46Ub2WSEYEqXwbxWIjC4aAgF6DYaiplb3OVtH+PsJaYwCHThLMGSRsd8xreNl!oQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3620
 by: olcott - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:55 UTC

On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>
>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>
>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>
> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when you
> refuse to define what is meant by this.

You are just playing head games.

>
> So far, you've only offered vague hints such as
>
> "When-so-ever logic diverges from semantic tautologies it errs."
>
> The above argument *IS* a semantic tautology, so that doesn't help.
>
> You've referred to "semantic consequences", but gave no explanation.
>
> The conclusion of the above argument *IS* a semantic consequence of its
> premises, so that doesn't help.
>
> You were the one who introduced the term "semantic logical necessity
> condition". I asked *you* to define it, and you respond by asking *me*
> to identify what the semantic logical necessity condition is in the
> above. How should I know? I have no idea what "semantic logical
> necessity condition" is supposed to mean and you refuse to give a
> definition.
>
> André
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]

<87y25vqw94.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23295&group=comp.theory#23295

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:08:55 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <87y25vqw94.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <25_iJ.30228$Bu7.1808@fx26.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="09ac62656c422c2aa841af50378cfedb";
logging-data="16681"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19N6VHtceSPtALpMuRPQ7DoHlsSQRs9emw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qWCwRi+P9z7MkF0e+hpMVckvv2w=
sha1:lamTJyvdnERdxO3pL+JoDnCdI7U=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.e4f7e1d9bde20720ce8f.20211111020855GMT.87y25vqw94.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:08 UTC

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 11/10/21 8:36 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/10/21 6:35 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the same thing using Peter Linz notation:
>>>> Oh dear, back to talking about Turing machines...
>>>>
>>>>> In this Linz machine:
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>> it is true that the correct pure simulation of the
>>>>> input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> There is no string ⟨Ĥ⟩, so there is nothing that can be simulated. You
>>>> keep removing the clause that defines Ĥ's behaviour:
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>>> With that clause put back, you (well, other people at least) can see
>>>> that no TM can behave like this.
>>>
>>> But, if you step back a bit and ask about the H^ based on a machine H
>>> that CLAIMS to meet the requirements, then you can have a H^ and a
>>> <H^>.
>> I disagree (though it's largely philosophical at this point). From the
>> claim that H meets Linz's spec we can deduce all sort of things. One of
>> which is that there is no string <H^>. But can also deduce any other
>> contradiction you like.
>> And that's the trouble. Anything PO says about such an H^ is validly
>> entailed by the assumption. He can even claim that 1 == 0 follows from
>> "Linz's specs", and he'd be right. At some stage you have to point out
>> the contradictions and force PO to abandon the initial assumption.
>>
>> I, for one, am fed up with trying to explain ever more silly
>> consequences of the initial assumption about H. The proof is simple and
>> the contradiction entailed is obvious.
>
> The difference is that PO HAS an H, so H does exist, and we can thus
> build a H^ from. (This assumes we can convert is 'C Program' into some
> sort of Turing Machine).

Not in this sub-thread. He starts: "In this Linz machine:" and then
gives the line he say not yet understood. He calls everything H, but
when it's Linz's we must assume what Linz assumes.

When H refers to his code, it's wrong for the reasons you and André and
I have been saying. If it's Linz H, it does not exist (or the class of
TMs referred to by H is empty).

Anyway, I'm butting out. If I've written out the proof using TMs more
than once, and the world has told him that his C code is wrong by
definition, but there is no way he will ever see any of this. It's not
that he's stupid, it's just that he's invested a significant proportion
of his life, and most of his self-esteem, in this ill thought out idea.
The mind will play extraordinary tricks in that sort of situation.

>> Indeed. So tell PO that there is no string <H^>. If there were, there
>> wold be a TM H^ halts if it does not and does not halt if it does.
>
> Except that you can create an machine H that you can (incorrectly)
> claim to meet the requirements, and thus a machine H^ can be created
> and thus the string <H^> exists.

If he starts "my H" then yes, but he started "this Linz machine". Of
course calling everything H is just another silly thing he does, but
there is "Linz's H" which does not exist, and "his H" which does not
meet Linz's specification.

--
Ben.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version] (Flibble)

<BtydnTQLSaxtHRH8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23296&group=comp.theory#23296

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic sci.math comp.ai.philosophy
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:33:20 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:33:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
(Flibble)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<25_iJ.30228$Bu7.1808@fx26.iad> <87y25vqw94.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87y25vqw94.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <BtydnTQLSaxtHRH8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 141
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-npo1+0xA6e68X8lK0H7NE1H2tpxvA0Zui1BYkogrP677MSb7h6A+gTMeQV5VEWbbQXuTbSWwxz2z36C!rX8pXbajaK2d4H8i5RAIXVA11ziiyKKpMke/WSalhEPU4MYcSL/KP+zVxe8yd0VOyfgycfJs8S3P!pw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7419
 by: olcott - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:33 UTC

On 11/10/2021 8:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 11/10/21 8:36 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 11/10/21 6:35 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the same thing using Peter Linz notation:
>>>>> Oh dear, back to talking about Turing machines...
>>>>>
>>>>>> In this Linz machine:
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>> it is true that the correct pure simulation of the
>>>>>> input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> There is no string ⟨Ĥ⟩, so there is nothing that can be simulated. You
>>>>> keep removing the clause that defines Ĥ's behaviour:
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>>>> With that clause put back, you (well, other people at least) can see
>>>>> that no TM can behave like this.
>>>>
>>>> But, if you step back a bit and ask about the H^ based on a machine H
>>>> that CLAIMS to meet the requirements, then you can have a H^ and a
>>>> <H^>.
>>> I disagree (though it's largely philosophical at this point). From the
>>> claim that H meets Linz's spec we can deduce all sort of things. One of
>>> which is that there is no string <H^>. But can also deduce any other
>>> contradiction you like.
>>> And that's the trouble. Anything PO says about such an H^ is validly
>>> entailed by the assumption. He can even claim that 1 == 0 follows from
>>> "Linz's specs", and he'd be right. At some stage you have to point out
>>> the contradictions and force PO to abandon the initial assumption.
>>>
>>> I, for one, am fed up with trying to explain ever more silly
>>> consequences of the initial assumption about H. The proof is simple and
>>> the contradiction entailed is obvious.
>>
>> The difference is that PO HAS an H, so H does exist, and we can thus
>> build a H^ from. (This assumes we can convert is 'C Program' into some
>> sort of Turing Machine).
>
> Not in this sub-thread. He starts: "In this Linz machine:" and then
> gives the line he say not yet understood. He calls everything H, but
> when it's Linz's we must assume what Linz assumes.
>
> When H refers to his code, it's wrong for the reasons you and André and
> I have been saying. If it's Linz H, it does not exist (or the class of
> TMs referred to by H is empty).
>
> Anyway, I'm butting out. If I've written out the proof using TMs more
> than once, and the world has told him that his C code is wrong by
> definition, but there is no way he will ever see any of this. It's not
> that he's stupid, it's just that he's invested a significant proportion
> of his life, and most of his self-esteem, in this ill thought out idea.
> The mind will play extraordinary tricks in that sort of situation.
>

Within the definition of the x86 language H(P,P)==0 is a necessary
consequence for every simulating halt decider H.

// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

_P()
[00000c36](01) 55 push ebp
[00000c37](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] // 2nd Param
[00000c3c](01) 50 push eax
[00000c3d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] // 1st Param
[00000c40](01) 51 push ecx
[00000c41](05) e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H
[00000c46](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c49](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000c4b](02) 7402 jz 00000c4f
[00000c4d](02) ebfe jmp 00000c4d
[00000c4f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000c50](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000c50]

Within the definition of the x86 language H(P,P)==0 is a necessary
consequence for every simulating halt decider H.

>>> Indeed. So tell PO that there is no string <H^>. If there were, there
>>> wold be a TM H^ halts if it does not and does not halt if it does.
>>
>> Except that you can create an machine H that you can (incorrectly)
>> claim to meet the requirements, and thus a machine H^ can be created
>> and thus the string <H^> exists.
>
> If he starts "my H" then yes, but he started "this Linz machine". Of
> course calling everything H is just another silly thing he does, but
> there is "Linz's H" which does not exist, and "his H" which does not
> meet Linz's specification.
>

Everyone simply leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong yet can't
point to a single error in the actual inference steps that prove my
point. Perhaps this simply means that everyone here is mostly clueless
about the x86 language.

Flibble seems to understand me quite well. He even understood the last
required step to convert my H into a pure function so well that he
presented it before I did.

[Olcott wrong about infinite recursion] comp.theory
On 11/10/2021 3:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Olcott is barking up the wrong tree re infinite recursion: there
> is only a need to detect a single recursive call into the halt decider
> and signal an exception. Why? Because infinite recursion is valid
> program behavior.
>
> /Flibble

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V2)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23297&group=comp.theory#23297

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:34:22 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:34:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="925612e2dd900e6735006c4a200b14f6";
logging-data="21091"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1Tj5Dr82g44FpwwbjA6ba"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BX49sY4yqYPnuITpyOPEMGbUkL4=
In-Reply-To: <qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:34 UTC

On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>
>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>
>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when you
>> refuse to define what is meant by this.
>
> You are just playing head games.

No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the flaw
with what you are proposing.

The problem is that, as far as I can tell, your claim that there is no
"semantic connection" between the conclusion of the above argument and
its premises rests solely on your intuition that these are unrelated. I
share that intuition.

The problem is that logic doesn't *have* intuitions, so if you want to
invoke 'semantic relatedness' in some rule of logic you need to define
this in terms of things that can actually be expressed in logic, and I
fail to see how this is achievable.

I'm fairly certain based on all that you've written that your use of
terms like 'semantic tautology' and 'semantic consequence' bears no
relation to what these things actually mean in logic; there's no point,
therefore, in invoking these unless you learn what they actually mean.

So do you actually have some way to define 'semantic connection' that
actually relies only on the machinery available to formal systems and
not on personal intuitions?

André

>>
>> So far, you've only offered vague hints such as
>>
>> "When-so-ever logic diverges from semantic tautologies it errs."
>>
>> The above argument *IS* a semantic tautology, so that doesn't help.
>>
>> You've referred to "semantic consequences", but gave no explanation.
>>
>> The conclusion of the above argument *IS* a semantic consequence of
>> its premises, so that doesn't help.
>>
>> You were the one who introduced the term "semantic logical necessity
>> condition". I asked *you* to define it, and you respond by asking *me*
>> to identify what the semantic logical necessity condition is in the
>> above. How should I know? I have no idea what "semantic logical
>> necessity condition" is supposed to mean and you refuse to give a
>> definition.
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>
>

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<a9WdnQEA88gyHhH8nZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23298&group=comp.theory#23298

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:45:03 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:45:03 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <a9WdnQEA88gyHhH8nZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 28
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BeYmaw5yPvVNqRnpxrozQLT1tWYwMvMNipWhbK4O9NVobGXpJNTeDd57RO1cDBwJiDTXxwP2KYKuyi5!Q95LLkOpcNeDtxoGFvT8deYbc4hl78kP2OFhSu8hmygNrR3DnzrQEChrbmc/l6OpNfVOUF64D1xv!dA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3129
 by: olcott - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:45 UTC

On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>
>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>
>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>
>> You are just playing head games.
>
> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the flaw
> with what you are proposing.
Then explain to me exactly how anything about the Moon has anything to
do with 3 > 5.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<smi0qb$q20$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23299&group=comp.theory#23299

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:57:13 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <smi0qb$q20$1@dont-email.me>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
<a9WdnQEA88gyHhH8nZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:57:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="925612e2dd900e6735006c4a200b14f6";
logging-data="26688"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qAt23U+XvtQqNjf5CHLF2"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hey4KX1IQ0En/Ybgo9lT1vTsZBY=
In-Reply-To: <a9WdnQEA88gyHhH8nZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:57 UTC

On 2021-11-10 19:45, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>>
>>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>>
>>> You are just playing head games.
>>
>> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the
>> flaw with what you are proposing.
> Then explain to me exactly how anything about the Moon has anything to
> do with 3 > 5.

Did you entirely skip over the explanation I gave which you snipped? I
said that I *agree* that these are unrelated.

The problem is how to formulate that into logic. I recognize that these
are unrelated due to a combination of my intuitions and my knowledge of
the world, but logic has neither of these things.

Unless you can come up a with a way to formalize the notion of
relatedness so you can determine whether two things are related
*without* reference to intuition or knowledge of the world there is no
way to make use of this notion in a formal logical system.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion

<xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23300&group=comp.theory#23300

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:08:45 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:08:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 101
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4M8TGrBg3drLqO7Mbx6UL18N0or2QB9Ud6C2eEYPtIQcHkp3+YTZ0RSbERZ7ZrEB99HNBkYlugmL4Ru!Jr0MLWUBKpVNPUftgiGZQgYIkclAHeAhkbihffZHEFzT3uropX3RGcgfbW9f/S79NFL9CpL2kiYG!WA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5896
 by: olcott - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 03:08 UTC

On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>
>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>
>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>
>> You are just playing head games.
>
> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the flaw
> with what you are proposing.
>
> The problem is that, as far as I can tell, your claim that there is no
> "semantic connection" between the conclusion of the above argument and
> its premises rests solely on your intuition that these are unrelated. I
> share that intuition.
>
> The problem is that logic doesn't *have* intuitions, so if you want to
> invoke 'semantic relatedness' in some rule of logic you need to define
> this in terms of things that can actually be expressed in logic, and I
> fail to see how this is achievable.
>
> I'm fairly certain based on all that you've written that your use of
> terms like 'semantic tautology' and 'semantic consequence' bears no
> relation to what these things actually mean in logic; there's no point,
> therefore, in invoking these unless you learn what they actually mean.
>
> So do you actually have some way to define 'semantic connection' that
> actually relies only on the machinery available to formal systems and
> not on personal intuitions?
>
> André
>

Quick overview for newcomers:
Classical logic and symbolic err when they diverge the the model of the
syllogism. Their biggest mistake is exemplified by the principle of
explosion.

The syllogism requires semantic logical necessity connections between
its elements. It enforces this through
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition

My proposal is to correct the errors of symbolic logic using one or more
of these steps.

(1) Toss out the POE on its ass.
From a contradiction or a falsehood not one damn thing logically follows.

(2) Extend the the semantic connections that are already included in
syllogisms to encompass a broader scope of natural language semantic
meanings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition

This is one way to do that:
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic

(4) Extending Montague semantics is the most comprehensive way.
This is based on:
https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf

>>>
>>> So far, you've only offered vague hints such as
>>>
>>> "When-so-ever logic diverges from semantic tautologies it errs."
>>>
>>> The above argument *IS* a semantic tautology, so that doesn't help.
>>>
>>> You've referred to "semantic consequences", but gave no explanation.
>>>
>>> The conclusion of the above argument *IS* a semantic consequence of
>>> its premises, so that doesn't help.
>>>
>>> You were the one who introduced the term "semantic logical necessity
>>> condition". I asked *you* to define it, and you respond by asking
>>> *me* to identify what the semantic logical necessity condition is in
>>> the above. How should I know? I have no idea what "semantic logical
>>> necessity condition" is supposed to mean and you refuse to give a
>>> definition.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version] (Flibble)

<DZ%iJ.22894$_Y5.20747@fx29.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23301&group=comp.theory#23301

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx29.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [Linz version]
(Flibble)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r3pxrgc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sme6cl$ti4$1@dont-email.me>
<96809c55-4e87-4a97-a1bc-ad67ea4258aan@googlegroups.com>
<i9udnRQsSszwiBb8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad> <87tugkuo79.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<25_iJ.30228$Bu7.1808@fx26.iad> <87y25vqw94.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<BtydnTQLSaxtHRH8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <BtydnTQLSaxtHRH8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <DZ%iJ.22894$_Y5.20747@fx29.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:20:03 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 9104
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 03:20 UTC

On 11/10/21 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 8:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/10/21 8:36 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/21 6:35 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the same thing using Peter Linz notation:
>>>>>> Oh dear, back to talking about Turing machines...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this Linz machine:
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>> it is true that the correct pure simulation of the
>>>>>>> input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> There is no string ⟨Ĥ⟩, so there is nothing that can be
>>>>>> simulated.  You
>>>>>> keep removing the clause that defines Ĥ's behaviour:
>>>>>>      Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>      if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>>>>> With that clause put back, you (well, other people at least) can see
>>>>>> that no TM can behave like this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, if you step back a bit and ask about the H^ based on a machine H
>>>>> that CLAIMS to meet the requirements, then you can have a H^ and a
>>>>> <H^>.
>>>> I disagree (though it's largely philosophical at this point).  From the
>>>> claim that H meets Linz's spec we can deduce all sort of things.
>>>> One of
>>>> which is that there is no string <H^>.  But can also deduce any other
>>>> contradiction you like.
>>>> And that's the trouble.  Anything PO says about such an H^ is validly
>>>> entailed by the assumption.  He can even claim that 1 == 0 follows from
>>>> "Linz's specs", and he'd be right.  At some stage you have to point out
>>>> the contradictions and force PO to abandon the initial assumption.
>>>>
>>>> I, for one, am fed up with trying to explain ever more silly
>>>> consequences of the initial assumption about H.  The proof is simple
>>>> and
>>>> the contradiction entailed is obvious.
>>>
>>> The difference is that PO HAS an H, so H does exist, and we can thus
>>> build a H^ from. (This assumes we can convert is 'C Program' into some
>>> sort of Turing Machine).
>>
>> Not in this sub-thread.  He starts: "In this Linz machine:" and then
>> gives the line he say not yet understood.  He calls everything H, but
>> when it's Linz's we must assume what Linz assumes.
>>
>> When H refers to his code, it's wrong for the reasons you and André and
>> I have been saying.  If it's Linz H, it does not exist (or the class of
>> TMs referred to by H is empty).
>>
>> Anyway, I'm butting out.  If I've written out the proof using TMs more
>> than once, and the world has told him that his C code is wrong by
>> definition, but there is no way he will ever see any of this.  It's not
>> that he's stupid, it's just that he's invested a significant proportion
>> of his life, and most of his self-esteem, in this ill thought out idea.
>> The mind will play extraordinary tricks in that sort of situation.
>>
>
> Within the definition of the x86 language H(P,P)==0 is a necessary
> consequence for every simulating halt decider H.
>
> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
>
> _P()
> [00000c36](01)  55          push ebp
> [00000c37](02)  8bec        mov ebp,esp
> [00000c39](03)  8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08] // 2nd Param
> [00000c3c](01)  50          push eax
> [00000c3d](03)  8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08] // 1st Param
> [00000c40](01)  51          push ecx
> [00000c41](05)  e820fdffff  call 00000966    // call H
> [00000c46](03)  83c408      add esp,+08
> [00000c49](02)  85c0        test eax,eax
> [00000c4b](02)  7402        jz 00000c4f
> [00000c4d](02)  ebfe        jmp 00000c4d
> [00000c4f](01)  5d          pop ebp
> [00000c50](01)  c3          ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000c50]
>
> Within the definition of the x86 language H(P,P)==0 is a necessary
> consequence for every simulating halt decider H.

No, it isn't.

That may be the right answer to your POOP, but not the Halting Problem.

You are ignroing that IF H(P,P) returns 0, then as a strict consequence
of this, the actual running of P(P) will be halting, and the actual
running of UTM(P,P) is to Halt.

Only be INCORRECTLY thinking that H actually is a pure simulation when
it breaks the definition of that by aborting its simulation do you end
up with the case that H returns 0 and it also doesn't simulate that
input to a halting state. Remember:

An aborted simulation does not prove non-halting.

A simulation that presumes H is a pure simulation when some copy of H
actual aborts that same simulation is incorrect, and the replacement of
the trace of H simulating its input with a trace of the machine it is
simulating is only valid if H actual is a non-aborting simulator.

>
>
>>>> Indeed.  So tell PO that there is no string <H^>.  If there were, there
>>>> wold be a TM H^ halts if it does not and does not halt if it does.
>>>
>>> Except that you can create an machine H that you can (incorrectly)
>>> claim to meet the requirements, and thus a machine H^ can be created
>>> and thus the string <H^> exists.
>>
>> If he starts "my H" then yes, but he started "this Linz machine".  Of
>> course calling everything H is just another silly thing he does, but
>> there is "Linz's H" which does not exist, and "his H" which does not
>> meet Linz's specification.
>>
>
> Everyone simply leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong yet can't
> point to a single error in the actual inference steps that prove my
> point. Perhaps this simply means that everyone here is mostly clueless
> about the x86 language.

We don't 'Leap to the conclusion', we know for a fact because of the
definitions in the problem.

The DEFINITION of the RIGHT answer for a Halt Decider is the behavior of
the machine represented by the input, NOT what some partial simulation
done by the machine does.

One fundamental problem you have is you just don't understand what it
means to actually PROVE something, and thus you haven't actually PROVED
anything. This is especially funny considering that by your own words,
this means that NOTHING you have said is true, because by your own
rules, only things that are ANALYTICALLY PROVEN can be considered true.

You want to claim them true by the meaning of the words, but then you
don't actually know the meaning of the words, especiaaly the technical
words used in the field.

>
> Flibble seems to understand me quite well. He even understood the last
> required step to convert my H into a pure function so well that he
> presented it before I did.
>
> [Olcott wrong about infinite recursion] comp.theory
> On 11/10/2021 3:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Olcott is barking up the wrong tree re infinite recursion: there
> > is only a need to detect a single recursive call into the halt decider
> > and signal an exception.  Why?  Because infinite recursion is valid
> > program behavior.
> >
> > /Flibble
>
>
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V2)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>
>
>
>

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical necessity ](POE)

<s00jJ.22895$_Y5.22168@fx29.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23302&group=comp.theory#23302

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx29.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V5 [ logical
necessity ](POE)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
<a9WdnQEA88gyHhH8nZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <a9WdnQEA88gyHhH8nZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <s00jJ.22895$_Y5.22168@fx29.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:23:04 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 3105
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 03:23 UTC

On 11/10/21 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>>
>>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>>
>>> You are just playing head games.
>>
>> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the
>> flaw with what you are proposing.
> Then explain to me exactly how anything about the Moon has anything to
> do with 3 > 5.
>

And what does your famous quote that black cats are black have to do
with the problem either?

As I mentioned, there IS a proof that shows that was mentioned that
given ANY contradiction, it is possible to prove any other contradiction
(at least for statements that are truth bearers).

Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion

<Z70jJ.37435$7D4.8805@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23303&group=comp.theory#23303

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
<xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <Z70jJ.37435$7D4.8805@fx37.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:30:59 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5846
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 03:30 UTC

On 11/10/21 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>>
>>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>>
>>> You are just playing head games.
>>
>> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the
>> flaw with what you are proposing.
>>
>> The problem is that, as far as I can tell, your claim that there is no
>> "semantic connection" between the conclusion of the above argument and
>> its premises rests solely on your intuition that these are unrelated.
>> I share that intuition.
>>
>> The problem is that logic doesn't *have* intuitions, so if you want to
>> invoke 'semantic relatedness' in some rule of logic you need to define
>> this in terms of things that can actually be expressed in logic, and I
>> fail to see how this is achievable.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain based on all that you've written that your use of
>> terms like 'semantic tautology' and 'semantic consequence' bears no
>> relation to what these things actually mean in logic; there's no
>> point, therefore, in invoking these unless you learn what they
>> actually mean.
>>
>> So do you actually have some way to define 'semantic connection' that
>> actually relies only on the machinery available to formal systems and
>> not on personal intuitions?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Quick overview for newcomers:
> Classical logic and symbolic err when they diverge the the model of the
> syllogism. Their biggest mistake is exemplified by the principle of
> explosion.

And if you use the wrong frame of logic in a field you get bad answers.

>
> The syllogism requires semantic logical necessity connections between
> its elements. It enforces this through
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>
> My proposal is to correct the errors of symbolic logic using one or more
> of these steps.
>
> (1) Toss out the POE on its ass.
> From a contradiction or a falsehood not one damn thing logically follows.
>
> (2) Extend the the semantic connections that are already included in
> syllogisms to encompass a broader scope of natural language semantic
> meanings.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>
> This is one way to do that:
> (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>
> (4) Extending Montague semantics is the most comprehensive way.
> This is based on:
> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf

And if you want to do this, my guess is you have to abandon most of the
field of Mathematics.

Fine, if you want to decide that you are unable to talk about that sort
of thing.

Bad if you think that you have the athority to tell other people that
they can't.

If you disagree, then you have the option of do what you are saying,
then start at the fundamental principles of Mathematics and see how far
you can get. My guess is that you are going to find that either your
system starts to pop up awkward inconsistencies as you need to add
methods into your logic system to handle some things, or you are going
to find vast areas of Mathematics that are just unable to be talked
about with your logic.

I wonder if you can get to the point of actually PROV(NG from
fundamentals that fully conform to your system that prime factorization
is unique. (That is after first deriving the rules for how to add and
multiply and what that actually means).

Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion

<smi339$636$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23304&group=comp.theory#23304

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:36:07 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <smi339$636$1@dont-email.me>
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fc2bd138-c245-4e76-b7b3-44bc1c2ae36an@googlegroups.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
<xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 03:36:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="925612e2dd900e6735006c4a200b14f6";
logging-data="6246"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+g4AphFAaTjnBhvbwRMdOz"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ECS+CN2+/C4LqciKVdDevG411EI=
In-Reply-To: <xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 03:36 UTC

On 2021-11-10 20:08, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>>
>>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>>
>>> You are just playing head games.
>>
>> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the
>> flaw with what you are proposing.
>>
>> The problem is that, as far as I can tell, your claim that there is no
>> "semantic connection" between the conclusion of the above argument and
>> its premises rests solely on your intuition that these are unrelated.
>> I share that intuition.
>>
>> The problem is that logic doesn't *have* intuitions, so if you want to
>> invoke 'semantic relatedness' in some rule of logic you need to define
>> this in terms of things that can actually be expressed in logic, and I
>> fail to see how this is achievable.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain based on all that you've written that your use of
>> terms like 'semantic tautology' and 'semantic consequence' bears no
>> relation to what these things actually mean in logic; there's no
>> point, therefore, in invoking these unless you learn what they
>> actually mean.
>>
>> So do you actually have some way to define 'semantic connection' that
>> actually relies only on the machinery available to formal systems and
>> not on personal intuitions?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Quick overview for newcomers:
> Classical logic and symbolic err when they diverge the the model of the
> syllogism. Their biggest mistake is exemplified by the principle of
> explosion.
>
> The syllogism requires semantic logical necessity connections between
> its elements. It enforces this through

Please provide a source that states that syllogisms require "semantic
logical necessity connections between its elements".

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>
> My proposal is to correct the errors of symbolic logic using one or more
> of these steps.
>
> (1) Toss out the POE on its ass.
> From a contradiction or a falsehood not one damn thing logically follows.

You can't simply "throw out" the principle of explosion. It is something
that can be proven from other principles of logic. It's not some
independent principle that can simply be denied. It follows from basic
definitions of logical operators.

> (2) Extend the the semantic connections that are already included in
> syllogisms to encompass a broader scope of natural language semantic
> meanings.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition

Again, please define "semantic connection".

> This is one way to do that:
> (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>
> (4) Extending Montague semantics is the most comprehensive way.
> This is based on:
> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf

Montague Grammar is not based on Carnap. It is based on categorial
grammar. Of course, since you've never read a single thing by Montague
and have no idea how his grammar works, you probably shouldn't make
claims about what it does.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion

<itudnUAX5qz7CRH8nZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23305&group=comp.theory#23305

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:56:22 -0600
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:56:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<VZWdnX77sYCZzhb8nZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
<xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smi339$636$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <smi339$636$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <itudnUAX5qz7CRH8nZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 126
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-F8S9+7MB+tH7CCOVGU+WStui+6ELHkKnOjiPmSJfwHVEYxbtO6Vw82QDpAPKIlVCxStyoiI7+SF020J!wMhfKor8lRWsFzofdCQQDgcUkktHeNnm0dCdZ0QACh4NaSsC3b6gxzmPq+9C7Ey033/eo+6K1MIC!eQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6634
 by: olcott - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 03:56 UTC

On 11/10/2021 9:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-10 20:08, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>>>
>>>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>>>
>>>> You are just playing head games.
>>>
>>> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the
>>> flaw with what you are proposing.
>>>
>>> The problem is that, as far as I can tell, your claim that there is
>>> no "semantic connection" between the conclusion of the above argument
>>> and its premises rests solely on your intuition that these are
>>> unrelated. I share that intuition.
>>>
>>> The problem is that logic doesn't *have* intuitions, so if you want
>>> to invoke 'semantic relatedness' in some rule of logic you need to
>>> define this in terms of things that can actually be expressed in
>>> logic, and I fail to see how this is achievable.
>>>
>>> I'm fairly certain based on all that you've written that your use of
>>> terms like 'semantic tautology' and 'semantic consequence' bears no
>>> relation to what these things actually mean in logic; there's no
>>> point, therefore, in invoking these unless you learn what they
>>> actually mean.
>>>
>>> So do you actually have some way to define 'semantic connection' that
>>> actually relies only on the machinery available to formal systems and
>>> not on personal intuitions?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Quick overview for newcomers:
>> Classical logic and symbolic err when they diverge the the model of
>> the syllogism. Their biggest mistake is exemplified by the principle
>> of explosion.
>>
>> The syllogism requires semantic logical necessity connections between
>> its elements. It enforces this through
>
> Please provide a source that states that syllogisms require "semantic
> logical necessity connections between its elements".
>

That is explained in the next link. Syllogisms are basically set
operations on defined sets.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>>
>> My proposal is to correct the errors of symbolic logic using one or
>> more of these steps.
>>
>> (1) Toss out the POE on its ass.
>>  From a contradiction or a falsehood not one damn thing logically
>> follows.
>
> You can't simply "throw out" the principle of explosion. It is something
> that can be proven from other principles of logic. It's not some
> independent principle that can simply be denied. It follows from basic
> definitions of logical operators.
>

That is a freaking nutty thing to say.
That would mean that sentences about the Moon are proven to be related
to the relation of integers to each other.

>> (2) Extend the the semantic connections that are already included in
>> syllogisms to encompass a broader scope of natural language semantic
>> meanings.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>
> Again, please define "semantic connection".
>

More head games

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

there is a semantic relation between the defined sets.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore the Moon is made from green cheese

there is NOT a semantic relation between the defined sets.

>> This is one way to do that:
>> (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>>
>> (4) Extending Montague semantics is the most comprehensive way.
>> This is based on:
>> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
>
> Montague Grammar is not based on Carnap. It is based on categorial

Montague grammar forms Rudolf freaking Carnap meaning postulates.

> grammar. Of course, since you've never read a single thing by Montague
> and have no idea how his grammar works, you probably shouldn't make
> claims about what it does.
>
> André
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion

<DS0jJ.23183$L_2.11852@fx04.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23306&group=comp.theory#23306

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: Logical Necessity and the Principle of Explosion
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <QvadnQ3nvOTfFhf8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl2sw8e7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c4PiJ.91732$IW4.25504@fx48.iad>
<28WdnZ7bI-edTxb8nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl2suiap.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Weednb21r6tZcxb8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o86st04s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<4LednWXvW4FVYhb8nZ2dnUU78ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877ddfu8ad.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FaqdnYPofcDkgBH8nZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v90zsplz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yLGdnbyz7JXmqhH8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<484f1a08-57b7-4a54-a812-74a09fff6f40n@googlegroups.com>
<jPydnZ8Qvcgw1hH8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhks9$rik$1@dont-email.me>
<UuCdnT0bpKou_RH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhr4k$fns$1@dont-email.me>
<adKdnQ44tsu07xH8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhsv0$f0d$1@dont-email.me>
<qoGdnR859M-L5RH8nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <smhvff$kj3$1@dont-email.me>
<xMidnfyHb_mgFBH8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smi339$636$1@dont-email.me>
<itudnUAX5qz7CRH8nZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <itudnUAX5qz7CRH8nZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <DS0jJ.23183$L_2.11852@fx04.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 23:20:51 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 7804
X-Original-Bytes: 7583
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 11 Nov 2021 04:20 UTC

On 11/10/21 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 9:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10 20:08, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 8:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-10 18:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2021 7:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-11-10 18:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whet semantic logical necessity connection is there between
>>>>>>> (a) the Moon is made from green cheese
>>>>>>> (b) the Moon is not made from green cheese
>>>>>>> (a) and (b) proves that 3 > 5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does anything about the Moon have to do with 3 > 5 ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can I answer what "logical necessity connection" there is when
>>>>>> you refuse to define what is meant by this.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just playing head games.
>>>>
>>>> No. I am not playing head games. I am trying to get you to see the
>>>> flaw with what you are proposing.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that, as far as I can tell, your claim that there is
>>>> no "semantic connection" between the conclusion of the above
>>>> argument and its premises rests solely on your intuition that these
>>>> are unrelated. I share that intuition.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that logic doesn't *have* intuitions, so if you want
>>>> to invoke 'semantic relatedness' in some rule of logic you need to
>>>> define this in terms of things that can actually be expressed in
>>>> logic, and I fail to see how this is achievable.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly certain based on all that you've written that your use of
>>>> terms like 'semantic tautology' and 'semantic consequence' bears no
>>>> relation to what these things actually mean in logic; there's no
>>>> point, therefore, in invoking these unless you learn what they
>>>> actually mean.
>>>>
>>>> So do you actually have some way to define 'semantic connection'
>>>> that actually relies only on the machinery available to formal
>>>> systems and not on personal intuitions?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quick overview for newcomers:
>>> Classical logic and symbolic err when they diverge the the model of
>>> the syllogism. Their biggest mistake is exemplified by the principle
>>> of explosion.
>>>
>>> The syllogism requires semantic logical necessity connections between
>>> its elements. It enforces this through
>>
>> Please provide a source that states that syllogisms require "semantic
>> logical necessity connections between its elements".
>>
>
> That is explained in the next link. Syllogisms are basically set
> operations on defined sets.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>>>
>>> My proposal is to correct the errors of symbolic logic using one or
>>> more of these steps.
>>>
>>> (1) Toss out the POE on its ass.
>>>  From a contradiction or a falsehood not one damn thing logically
>>> follows.
>>
>> You can't simply "throw out" the principle of explosion. It is
>> something that can be proven from other principles of logic. It's not
>> some independent principle that can simply be denied. It follows from
>> basic definitions of logical operators.
>>
>
> That is a freaking nutty thing to say.
> That would mean that sentences about the Moon are proven to be related
> to the relation of integers to each other.

No, it means that you don't understand how long chains of reasoning can
span a very wide spectrum of topics.

If your logic system can't chain together thoughts to express something
bigger than what is obvious in a single statement, it isn't a very good
logic system.

(And isn't that what you are tring to do with your halting proof?)

>
>>> (2) Extend the the semantic connections that are already included in
>>> syllogisms to encompass a broader scope of natural language semantic
>>> meanings.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
>>
>> Again, please define "semantic connection".
>>
>
> More head games
>
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
>
> there is a semantic relation between the defined sets.
>
>
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore the Moon is made from green cheese
>
> there is NOT a semantic relation between the defined sets.

Right, but then you don't understand what the original statement said.

In more general terms:

1) X is True.
2) X is False.
3) By definitions, from 1 and 2 we have a contradiction given as true
4) Y is True.
5) by the principle of explosion, if you have one contradiction given as
true, then from any other truth we can prove its opposite. This is
established by 3
6) by 4 and 5, we can asssert that Y is False.

Now, Step 5 needs to be proven, and that is what the proof of the
Principle of explosions does. It doesn't matter that X and Y are totally
unrelated, as the the proof is based on pure abstract rules of logic.

Now, it is possible to define your basic logic rules to make the
Principle of Explosions not true, but these systems tend to not be able
to prove as many things, so again you hit the limitation that if you
want to be able to talk about Mathematics, you can't just arbitrarily
change the ground rules of the logic and still expect to have all of
Mathematics available.

>
>>> This is one way to do that:
>>> (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>>>
>>> (4) Extending Montague semantics is the most comprehensive way.
>>> This is based on:
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
>>
>> Montague Grammar is not based on Carnap. It is based on categorial
>
> Montague grammar forms Rudolf freaking Carnap meaning postulates.
>
>> grammar. Of course, since you've never read a single thing by Montague
>> and have no idea how his grammar works, you probably shouldn't make
>> claims about what it does.
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>
>

Pages:1234
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor