Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be prosecuted.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Scientific reasoning

SubjectAuthor
* Scientific reasoningolcott
`* Scientific reasoningwij
 `* Scientific reasoningolcott
  `* Scientific reasoningAndré G. Isaak
   `* Scientific reasoningolcott
    `* Scientific reasoningAndré G. Isaak
     `* Scientific reasoningolcott
      `* Scientific reasoningAndré G. Isaak
       `* Scientific reasoningolcott
        `* Scientific reasoningAndré G. Isaak
         `* Scientific reasoningolcott
          `* Scientific reasoningAndré G. Isaak
           `* Scientific reasoningolcott
            +* Scientific reasoningBen Bacarisse
            |`* Scientific reasoningolcott
            | +* Scientific reasoningBen Bacarisse
            | |`* Scientific reasoningolcott
            | | +- Scientific reasoningRichard Damon
            | | `* Scientific reasoningBen Bacarisse
            | |  `* Scientific reasoningolcott
            | |   +- Scientific reasoningRichard Damon
            | |   `* Scientific reasoningBen Bacarisse
            | |    `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     +* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |     |`* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |     | `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |  +- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |     |  `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |     |   `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |    +* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Malcolm McLean
            | |     |    |`- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |    `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |     |     `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |      `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |     |       `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |        +- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |     |        `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |     |         `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |          `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |     |           `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |            +- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |     |            `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]André G. Isaak
            | |     |             `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |              `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]André G. Isaak
            | |     |               `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |     |                `- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |     `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |      `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |       `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |        `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |         +- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |         `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |          `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |           +- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Ben Bacarisse
            | |           `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | |            +* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Malcolm McLean
            | |            |`- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |            `* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |             +* Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Daniel Pehoushek
            | |             |`- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]olcott
            | |             `- Scientific reasoning [ if H is correct then it is not incorrect ]Richard Damon
            | `* Scientific reasoningAlan Mackenzie
            |  `* Scientific reasoningolcott
            |   +* Scientific reasoningAlan Mackenzie
            |   |`- Scientific reasoningolcott
            |   `* Scientific reasoningRichard Damon
            |    `* Scientific reasoningolcott
            |     `- Scientific reasoningRichard Damon
            +* Scientific reasoningAndré G. Isaak
            |`* Scientific reasoningolcott
            | +* Scientific reasoningAndré G. Isaak
            | |`* Scientific reasoningolcott
            | | `* Scientific reasoningRichard Damon
            | |  `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩olcott
            | |   `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_Richard Damon
            | |    `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_olcott
            | |     `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_Richard Damon
            | |      `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩olcott
            | |       `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_Richard Damon
            | |        `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ [ infinite loops ]olcott
            | |         `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_Richard Damon
            | |          `* _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_olcott
            | |           `- _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_Richard Damon
            | `- Scientific reasoningRichard Damon
            `- Scientific reasoningRichard Damon

Pages:1234
Scientific reasoning

<3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22553&group=comp.theory#22553

 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:26:01 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.giganews.com:119
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Subject: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:25:56 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 7
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6oCfgEvtbzqfRgspe0sKbl1BJNYkCncinITJcQvbd1k2KB5NTQyWt+k9YiUUfHhHEJIEVCJ2IiQAp/G!cJVG2AX5QyRNLGNWvZYfEM3xrYmGc9TJKa246l/JNlvgF6Wj5VTSce7phdZguMtIpuYFoarqrWM=
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: 1292
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:25 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22555&group=comp.theory#22555

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:de:: with SMTP id d30mr6854661qtg.377.1634834385490;
Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ad03:: with SMTP id y3mr2820138ybi.522.1634834385289;
Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=58.115.187.102; posting-account=QJ9iEwoAAACyjkKjQAWQOwSEULNvZZkc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.115.187.102
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
From: wyni...@gmail.com (wij)
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:39:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 10
 by: wij - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:39 UTC

On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason with you
scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental fact.

Re: Scientific reasoning

<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22558&group=comp.theory#22558

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:11:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com> <28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:11:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 25
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HRXMTlGQ5//X6XlJFKu7G/BXAX6y5hNry70X0nuNO+HdCFyRu8Ej+YEH0wPIaQsZAey0ylc/Iaeprw7!S4+57FX2FnaWQJuG60d8ZusXdSxmETZfhN9S2DtnidE+NxzQnAxogxqQdPi/j9GMmmxkIvGizNk=
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: 2095
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:11 UTC

On 10/21/2021 11:39 AM, wij wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
> IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason with you
> scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental fact.
>

My reasoning is based on epistemology not science.
With science one gets what appears to be very reliable conclusions.

With epistemology applied to the analytic side of the analytic versus
synthetic distinction one gets necessarily true conclusions.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22559&group=comp.theory#22559

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:43:17 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:43:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5b1c6c4f657cf76efbb1b48adedc0eed";
logging-data="22900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18v4YmlTDZq7ZCYvQhUxALQ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7upSQxwgnUwqklsnkeFWzqFxksA=
In-Reply-To: <s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:43 UTC

On 2021-10-21 11:11, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 11:39 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>>>
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>
>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>> minds." Einstein
>>
>> IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason with
>> you
>> scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental fact.
>>
>
> My reasoning is based on epistemology not science.
> With science one gets what appears to be very reliable conclusions.
>
> With epistemology applied to the analytic side of the analytic versus
> synthetic distinction one gets necessarily true conclusions.

As usual, you need to learn your terminology. The analytic/synthetic
distinction, to the extent that it is actually meaningful, is part of
the philosophy of language, not epistemology.

I think the terms you are looking for are a priori vs. a posteriori.
Science is only concerned with the latter.

André

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22560&group=comp.theory#22560

 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:04:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:03:55 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 78
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1DRWPs6IDwciyDI8bbxG2Uo5TTvoijqewCvVwc8gna+TYByAelEZwBwUNZ4zXqksyDTWC2v2odiS2yy!fDfrRGU3UegufqWStRAkKLq/Lp2RyJN53DQnXrzgGeSA5DZF1vWojh/t1HPKRzw310s7RjpD0p0=
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: 4554
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:03 UTC

On 10/21/2021 12:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 11:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 11:39 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>
>>> IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason
>>> with you
>>> scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental fact.
>>>
>>
>> My reasoning is based on epistemology not science.
>> With science one gets what appears to be very reliable conclusions.
>>
>> With epistemology applied to the analytic side of the analytic versus
>> synthetic distinction one gets necessarily true conclusions.
>
> As usual, you need to learn your terminology. The analytic/synthetic
> distinction, to the extent that it is actually meaningful, is part of
> the philosophy of language, not epistemology.
>

The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction, used
primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in
particular, statements that are affirmative subject–predicate judgments)
that are of two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions.
Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if any, derives from how
their meaning relates to the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstəˈmɒlədʒi/ (About this soundlisten); from Ancient
Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē) 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of
philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature,
origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality
of belief, and various related issues. Epistemology is considered a
major subfield of philosophy, along with other major subfields such as
ethics, logic, and metaphysics.[1]

Debates in epistemology are generally clustered around four core
areas:[2][3][4]

The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions
required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and
justification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I sum this up as some expressions of language can be definitely verified
as having the semantic property of Boolean true entirely based on the
meaning of this expression of language.

We can know that every TM that correctly determines that its input TM
description never reaches its final state represents a TM that does not
halt.

q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
If the simulated input to Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never reach its
final state then the simulating halt decider at Ĥq0 aborts its
simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ and correctly transitions to qn.

> I think the terms you are looking for are a priori vs. a posteriori.
> Science is only concerned with the latter.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22562&group=comp.theory#22562

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:58:57 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:58:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5b1c6c4f657cf76efbb1b48adedc0eed";
logging-data="6855"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NvxcX7SabfHmBM5tLDr1m"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ddvTb0pcQckYVTPzsZu+r/gCEWo=
In-Reply-To: <jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:58 UTC

On 2021-10-21 12:03, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 12:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 11:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 11:39 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>> mediocre
>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason
>>>> with you
>>>> scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My reasoning is based on epistemology not science.
>>> With science one gets what appears to be very reliable conclusions.
>>>
>>> With epistemology applied to the analytic side of the analytic versus
>>> synthetic distinction one gets necessarily true conclusions.
>>
>> As usual, you need to learn your terminology. The analytic/synthetic
>> distinction, to the extent that it is actually meaningful, is part of
>> the philosophy of language, not epistemology.
>>

> The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction, used
> primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in
> particular, statements that are affirmative subject–predicate judgments)
> that are of two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions.
> Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
> meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if any, derives from how
> their meaning relates to the world.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

<snip remainder of quoted text>

I'm really not clear on why you think all these quotes from wikipedia
etc. have anything to do with what I said.

Epistemology is concerned with how we gain knowledge of the world, not
about how that knowledge is expressed by language or about how
expressions of language relate to the world. The latter are in the
domain of philosophy of language. The analytic/synthetic distinction
concerns expressions of language, not epistemology.

You're doing what you always do -- you like throwing around terms which
you don't really understand.

André

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22564&group=comp.theory#22564

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:40:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:40:11 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 91
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xxtF4qgVPF7pC7w0+iZ0fDpA2q/cK3eidcYfpIiHO6m9KltcQW6pcbg+6p00RRUnLoVgt1AiZpHikLv!G1PlgGB0xbme0RfTWbjRerdD7DUK1r+p617OB8pZnTy6WSPfKPKlCcaS5ESyxMuGUrWcUVpe+kk=
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: 5048
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:40 UTC

On 10/21/2021 2:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 12:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 12:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 11:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 11:39 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>>> mediocre
>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason
>>>>> with you
>>>>> scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental
>>>>> fact.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My reasoning is based on epistemology not science.
>>>> With science one gets what appears to be very reliable conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> With epistemology applied to the analytic side of the analytic
>>>> versus synthetic distinction one gets necessarily true conclusions.
>>>
>>> As usual, you need to learn your terminology. The analytic/synthetic
>>> distinction, to the extent that it is actually meaningful, is part of
>>> the philosophy of language, not epistemology.
>>>
>
>> The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction, used
>> primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in
>> particular, statements that are affirmative subject–predicate
>> judgments) that are of two types: analytic propositions and synthetic
>> propositions. Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by
>> virtue of their meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if
>> any, derives from how their meaning relates to the world.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>
> <snip remainder of quoted text>
>
> I'm really not clear on why you think all these quotes from wikipedia
> etc. have anything to do with what I said.
>
> Epistemology is concerned with how we gain knowledge of the world, not
> about how that knowledge is expressed by language or about how
> expressions of language relate to the world.  The latter are in the
> domain of philosophy of language. The analytic/synthetic distinction
> concerns expressions of language, not epistemology.
>
> You're doing what you always do -- you like throwing around terms which
> you don't really understand.
>
> André
>

Knowing that some expressions of language can be verified as true
entirely based on their meaning is the analytical side of the analytic
versus semantic distinction.

Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

The whole infrastructure involved in the justification of knowledge is a
key aspect of epistemology.

The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions
required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and
justification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf

Because of this we can know that Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when it aborts
the simulution of its input and transitions to qn on the basis that the
simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state whether or not
Ĥq0 aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩.

We know that the above paragraph is true entirely on the basis of its
meaning.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22565&group=comp.theory#22565

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:02:13 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5b1c6c4f657cf76efbb1b48adedc0eed";
logging-data="24241"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qqlatcdS05dlYxyYTD53b"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YnQE94/NtG0mtkwPwCoLfQUlAOQ=
In-Reply-To: <PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:02 UTC

On 2021-10-21 14:40, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 2:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 12:03, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 12:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-21 11:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 11:39 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>>>> mediocre
>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason
>>>>>> with you
>>>>>> scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental
>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My reasoning is based on epistemology not science.
>>>>> With science one gets what appears to be very reliable conclusions.
>>>>>
>>>>> With epistemology applied to the analytic side of the analytic
>>>>> versus synthetic distinction one gets necessarily true conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, you need to learn your terminology. The analytic/synthetic
>>>> distinction, to the extent that it is actually meaningful, is part
>>>> of the philosophy of language, not epistemology.
>>>>
>>
>>> The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction, used
>>> primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in
>>> particular, statements that are affirmative subject–predicate
>>> judgments) that are of two types: analytic propositions and synthetic
>>> propositions. Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by
>>> virtue of their meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if
>>> any, derives from how their meaning relates to the world.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>
>> <snip remainder of quoted text>
>>
>> I'm really not clear on why you think all these quotes from wikipedia
>> etc. have anything to do with what I said.
>>
>> Epistemology is concerned with how we gain knowledge of the world, not
>> about how that knowledge is expressed by language or about how
>> expressions of language relate to the world.  The latter are in the
>> domain of philosophy of language. The analytic/synthetic distinction
>> concerns expressions of language, not epistemology.
>>
>> You're doing what you always do -- you like throwing around terms
>> which you don't really understand.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Knowing that some expressions of language can be verified as true
> entirely based on their meaning is the analytical side of the analytic
> versus semantic distinction.
>
> Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
> meaning
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

I'm already well aware of what these terms mean. You don't need to
explain them to me.

If you really want to understand the distinctions involved, you need to
look beyond encyclopedia articles. Encyclopedias aren't intended to give
you an in-depth understanding of a field. They are intended to give a
fairly basic overview of topics. That's all.

André

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22566&group=comp.theory#22566

 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:14:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:14:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 90
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iDbphvuAfkYfp6ej4kaBP4r9Qt+GeX495ZwAv0F6ZUGkIy5NQjnsGn37a/VomvpWhCVdzLJIbsUApFs!p5XKd/zMFVIfNkdEa3Wl1e+N8UU9f0AOsj60bSJD6nA95F6ZHuorbpMHg+DWa58TY/1PTjZ2N94=
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: 5139
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:14 UTC

On 10/21/2021 4:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 14:40, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 2:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 12:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 12:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-21 11:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 11:39 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 23:26:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZQLyECgknM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>>>>> mediocre
>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC, you even get the logic AND/IMPLY wrong. Difficult to reason
>>>>>>> with you
>>>>>>> scientifically. I reply for other people to know this fundamental
>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My reasoning is based on epistemology not science.
>>>>>> With science one gets what appears to be very reliable conclusions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With epistemology applied to the analytic side of the analytic
>>>>>> versus synthetic distinction one gets necessarily true conclusions.
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, you need to learn your terminology. The
>>>>> analytic/synthetic distinction, to the extent that it is actually
>>>>> meaningful, is part of the philosophy of language, not epistemology.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction, used
>>>> primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in
>>>> particular, statements that are affirmative subject–predicate
>>>> judgments) that are of two types: analytic propositions and
>>>> synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true or not true
>>>> solely by virtue of their meaning, whereas synthetic propositions'
>>>> truth, if any, derives from how their meaning relates to the world.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>
>>> <snip remainder of quoted text>
>>>
>>> I'm really not clear on why you think all these quotes from wikipedia
>>> etc. have anything to do with what I said.
>>>
>>> Epistemology is concerned with how we gain knowledge of the world,
>>> not about how that knowledge is expressed by language or about how
>>> expressions of language relate to the world.  The latter are in the
>>> domain of philosophy of language. The analytic/synthetic distinction
>>> concerns expressions of language, not epistemology.
>>>
>>> You're doing what you always do -- you like throwing around terms
>>> which you don't really understand.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Knowing that some expressions of language can be verified as true
>> entirely based on their meaning is the analytical side of the analytic
>> versus semantic distinction.
>>
>> Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
>> meaning
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>
> I'm already well aware of what these terms mean. You don't need to
> explain them to me.
>
> If you really want to understand the distinctions involved, you need to
> look beyond encyclopedia articles. Encyclopedias aren't intended to give
> you an in-depth understanding of a field. They are intended to give a
> fairly basic overview of topics. That's all.
>
> André
>
>

So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the truth
of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the semantic
meaning of these expressions of language?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22567&group=comp.theory#22567

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:45:42 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:45:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5b1c6c4f657cf76efbb1b48adedc0eed";
logging-data="10285"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/ku378mFHZropLibNgT9v"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gnNl3h8t/YmJGhekY7kZiZEzbxM=
In-Reply-To: <D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:45 UTC

On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:

> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the truth
> of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the semantic
> meaning of these expressions of language?

Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of sentences.
But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't concerned with the
evaluation of linguistic expressions.

André

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22568&group=comp.theory#22568

 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:59:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:59:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 22
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lD4nOptZdTPcXI5BFRgS6J/98i2tefZ4g4V1LTUYAeqcuFokr39hDzFAS5d8PYaptkLzFT4zYE1lZ6l!NduNHAZYJnXkCScBQchjT8aE8JGOGxDXAm9/FYHn+UYhkgJKngF1K9HTzrCdBuOn/YjN4ce60ew=
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: 2263
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:59 UTC

On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>
>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the
>> semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>
> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of sentences.
> But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't concerned with the
> evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>
> André
>

Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a TM
that never halts?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22569&group=comp.theory#22569

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:12:16 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="744e491e735491c6fca2ef67686f6c10";
logging-data="22613"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QfaFmfMK75bsqpJ7jL2jv"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AycPr21UD4a5drrJDzcX4CEMG60=
In-Reply-To: <eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:12 UTC

On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the
>>> semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>
>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't concerned
>> with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a TM
> that never halts?

Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.

How bout them Mets?

André

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22572&group=comp.theory#22572

 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:23:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:23:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IzEZV3b2pZxdsBCSwLj4afc0T/3tgGTEMJScr/88WmIm3Nb7mPI5gMVykuQAwpNabURmInaGxaLdiXA!Zz+ZxA7cw6/Wsp10XhmFrZAdfawPFzxOIVcLwGNwT6eKpnJ5ByJb3+7nnJZbQc3/yS30IfJ+32Q=
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: 2756
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:23 UTC

On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>>>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the
>>>> semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>
>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't concerned
>>> with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a TM
>> that never halts?
>
> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>
> How bout them Mets?
>
> André
>

q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22574&group=comp.theory#22574

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:38:48 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a3bb1bc3dae98cca541349f73000b53d";
logging-data="27733"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ulkS3UBJYsA4DnsEKeAgzb0RfaacBl2w="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DpYzzhy/LKlvnanUp+4DdAFUUmw=
sha1:DTIfajniJYcRm4Dw5TVyRCGvwtU=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.8a1742eb073f681be5a4.20211021233848BST.875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:38 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.

We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
exit.

--
Ben.

Re: Scientific reasoning

<sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22576&group=comp.theory#22576

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:55:17 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:55:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="744e491e735491c6fca2ef67686f6c10";
logging-data="21271"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DP0V8XzeT7OlIm/npn98v"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:97aFNLvP0F+nnF5LAIXXqBxxBWA=
In-Reply-To: <SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:55 UTC

On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>>>>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the
>>>>> semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a
>>> TM that never halts?
>>
>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>
>> How bout them Mets?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.

"We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?

André

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<vnmcJ.4140$FiQc.833@fx17.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22577&group=comp.theory#22577

 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!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx17.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/91.2.0
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <vnmcJ.4140$FiQc.833@fx17.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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:06:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2929
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:06 UTC

On 10/21/21 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>>>>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the
>>>>> semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a
>>> TM that never halts?
>>
>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>
>> How bout them Mets?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>

Really? What words say that?

H^ isn't defined to decide anything.

H^ doesn't even meet the requirements of a decider, as it only has 1
halting state, and a decider must have at least two.

H^ does USE a decider H, but that clearly gets the wrong answer as your
traces shows H^ Halting, but the H in it deciding that H^ will be
non-halting

The only way that this is 'correct' is in the language of Liars.

FAIL.

Re: Scientific reasoning

<z8OdnSqcCKMRaOz8nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22579&group=comp.theory#22579

 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!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:19:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:19:35 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <z8OdnSqcCKMRaOz8nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ErPAcDC6Zxhbo5QcTcBcUv4yiLU3PsdPJfel3gVUWpGRuX8ELRSM+7Gj/d83+CzPN5/Pbcb0Ihae+TD!sSAM5XnOzRUSPO7hrhNSGXlZN2r00mdVgaH5xtUAK8fLVedOf+T9RZqHscwUBatcPNgBoHo3u0A=
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: 2904
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:19 UTC

On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>
> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
> exit.
>

You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.

(a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.

(b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never
reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is aborted) then
we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its input and
transitions to qn.

The only reason that you cannot point out an error with the above is
that there is no error.

Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22580&group=comp.theory#22580

 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!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:22:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:22:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 58
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-msN8W3WyjpFWAQW328NZeJXhvsZNoZxexBt1v0uq0zpdPc0EitsTGC7X07ovcNyZPEJapxcTfZFAjqZ!SQ8fUCvC0rt9zadaPgRNjpo87kdXc1ceOC8Wd+l4UxCeJWSFg/qR2s0u013T3GPhvl2HuZEfYkE=
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: 3687
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:22 UTC

On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>>>>>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the
>>>>>> semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a
>>>> TM that never halts?
>>>
>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>
>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>
> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>
> André
>
>

Self-evident truths: (a & b)
(a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.

(b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never
reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is aborted)
then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its input and
transitions to qn.

The only reason that you cannot point out an error with the above is
that there is no error.

Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<skt1p7$tpn$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22589&group=comp.theory#22589

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:48:38 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <skt1p7$tpn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>
<z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:48:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="744e491e735491c6fca2ef67686f6c10";
logging-data="30519"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Eg4l2u9cUa5x4cYx/ic/B"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MszTGejvK+i+rA4IchfXuTXenN8=
In-Reply-To: <z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:48 UTC

On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>>>>>>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of
>>>>>>> the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a
>>>>> TM that never halts?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>
>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>
>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>
> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.

That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of halting.

> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never
>   reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is aborted)
> then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its input and
> transitions to qn.

Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that allow
us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?

André

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<NdudnY-ezNA7kO_8nZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22590&group=comp.theory#22590

 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:02:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>
<z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <skt1p7$tpn$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:02:24 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <skt1p7$tpn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <NdudnY-ezNA7kO_8nZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-17e7CsfmHwIMcsCHmfMC0XKv+CdAY7wxcRycMp40Q8qVgV7GQIQAp94nZs0gtI+MMscZ7Tt2aRjh7xO!+w9olgcFyTgd6ksKDXjsIYzICNfrouz7oIpdW6wB3IkCBQzfSOy9wgyBCuzG6lQE57uGGiFPBKE=
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: 4174
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Oct 2021 01:02 UTC

On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of
>>>>>>>> the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis
>>>>>>>> of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is
>>>>>> a TM that never halts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>
>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>
>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.
>
> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of halting.

An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified as
completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.

>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is
>> aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its
>> input and transitions to qn.
>
> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that allow
> us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>
> André
>

If X necessitates Y and X then Y.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<87pmrx6bq7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22592&group=comp.theory#22592

 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: Scientific reasoning
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 03:21:20 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <87pmrx6bq7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z8OdnSqcCKMRaOz8nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a3bb1bc3dae98cca541349f73000b53d";
logging-data="5064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/w+lrQTrkTJlzRgB5kQL+mp4Qk46/PWD0="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IbgbEXL3G5hoEbdAob9UA9uvkoA=
sha1:Ly5pNY2QphdOtathzAPIPjgvVJg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7af590776a00b782a7de.20211022032120BST.87pmrx6bq7.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:21 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>> exit.
>
> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.

Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
"simulating halt deciders".

--
Ben.

Re: Scientific reasoning

<5dSdna-bIufPvu_8nZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22594&group=comp.theory#22594

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:34:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z8OdnSqcCKMRaOz8nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmrx6bq7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:34:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87pmrx6bq7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5dSdna-bIufPvu_8nZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 45
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0hTUaq1YGOzDgoxjRGd83Er6sJgH6cmU32aUdesHKvxwOwvSz510qchpA9/n/Ch5jvYfEUpqcP54cZZ!Pi5B0yVNEPuv1xO9W3XvLjSZoZMI9DsrHia/LocagNRDmSPrwqcBZO4bPESgLPvl/MWlJ8HkWQM=
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: 3792
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:34 UTC

On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>> exit.
>>
>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>
> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
> "simulating halt deciders".
>

The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.

The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.

The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.

The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.

The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Scientific reasoning

<tWpcJ.4019$mv3.3762@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22596&group=comp.theory#22596

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx34.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/91.2.0
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z8OdnSqcCKMRaOz8nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmrx6bq7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5dSdna-bIufPvu_8nZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <5dSdna-bIufPvu_8nZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <tWpcJ.4019$mv3.3762@fx34.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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:08:08 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4137
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 22 Oct 2021 03:08 UTC

On 10/21/21 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>> exit.
>>>
>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>
>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>

And the proper interpretation of this is the first 'the input' is the
actual machine H^, and the actual statement in Linz is about the machine
whose representation is given to H.

The second 'its input' is the second copy of <H^>

Thus the question is what does the machine H^ do when applied to <H^>
and that is Halt as shown aboce as H^ reaches the state H^qn which is a
halting state.

The first 'the input' can't be H's (or the copy of H inside H^'s)
simulation as the problem doesn't (and can't) assume that the machine
doesn ANY simulation. That is one of your logical errors.

Re: Scientific reasoning

<R%pcJ.1576$O23.1049@fx42.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22597&group=comp.theory#22597

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!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!fx42.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/91.2.0
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>
<z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <R%pcJ.1576$O23.1049@fx42.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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:13:52 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4366
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 22 Oct 2021 03:13 UTC

On 10/21/21 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the
>>>>>>> truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of
>>>>>>> the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a
>>>>> TM that never halts?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>
>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>
>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>
> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.
>
> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never
>   reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is aborted)
> then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its input and
> transitions to qn.
>

Except that NEVER really means the MACHINE never reaches that state. An
aborted simulation does not tell you what that machine would have done
if simulated farther.

Note, your are not allowed to change the machine being simulated when
testing this, so we seeing if simulating longer, you MUST change just
the private copy of H that is doing the simulating, and not also the
copy of it that is in the H^ that you are simulating.

Note, the rules for constructing H^ REQUIRES that H^ have a COPY of H,
not use the same instance of H, in part because that is the way Turing
Machines work, they can't 'refer' to stuff that isn't part of them, so
you CAN'T use a given instance of the algorithm of H both to decide on
H^ and within H^.

> The only reason that you cannot point out an error with the above is
> that there is no error.
>

WRONG.

> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.
>
>

Your statement is impossible because you you do things in violation of
what you are attempting to show.

YOU FAIL. YOU ARE WRONG.

Re: Scientific reasoning

<sku1rc$2hip$1@news.muc.de>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=22599&group=comp.theory#22599

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: acm...@muc.de (Alan Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Scientific reasoning
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:55:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <sku1rc$2hip$1@news.muc.de>
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com> <jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me> <PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me> <D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me> <eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me> <SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <875ytq6m13.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z8OdnSqcCKMRaOz8nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:55:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
logging-data="83545"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.4.5-20201224 ("Glen Albyn") (FreeBSD/12.2-RELEASE-p7 (amd64))
 by: Alan Mackenzie - Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:55 UTC

[ Crossposts removed. ]

In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.

That is not the case. If the said statement, purely hypothetically, is
incoherent gibberish, it is impossible to prove it false. That doesn't
make it true.

There are many other reasons why "impossible to prove false" doesn't
necessarily imply truth.

> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Pages:1234
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor