On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippage
>>>
>>>>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of
>>>>>> Wittgenstein I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a
>>>>>> 100% complete rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both
>>>>>> true and unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>>>>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once
>>>> one comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth
>>>> itself actually works.
>>>
>>> Which 'self-evident truth' is that?
>>
>> The actual knowledge ontology structure of the body of analytic
>> knowledge.
>>
>>> Note that you have a bad track record of assuming that things which
>>> are demonstrably false are 'self-evidently true'.
>>>
>>
>> I do use some terminology somewhat inconsistently with its
>> conventional meaning to overcome [strong linguistic determinism] that
>> makes the ideas that I need to express otherwise inexpressible.
>
> Maybe you need to MISUSE terms because the ideas you have are not just
> otherwise inexpressible but actually IMPOSSIBLE (or incompatible with
> the field you are trying to work in).
>
>>
>> strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
>> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>
> And maybe you should look at the fact that you can't use the terms
> correctly means that your world view doesn't match the reality of the
> field.
>
>>
>>> Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
>>> talking about theories of arithmetic.
>>
>> The body of analytic truth encompasses all of mathematics and logic
>> and only excludes knowledge that can only be validated by input from
>> the sense organs.
>
> Then it needs to handle the fact that not all truths are provable.
>
> Otherwise, you need to PROVE your statement without assuming it.
>
> You still haven't answered the challenge of 3x+1, that one of the
> statements MUST be true, but neither might be provable.
>
>>
>>> The analytic/synthetic distinction is one made when discussing
>>> philosophy of language which deals with entirely different questions
>>> than arithmetic does.
>>>
>>
>> The notion of analytic truth is the foundation of all mathematics and
>> logic.
>
> No, the notion of analytic PROOF is the foundation of mathematics.
>
>>
>>> Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different
>>> meanings. You can't just assume that it is possible to import
>>> concepts from one field to another.
>>>
>>
>> If one field overloads the term "true" to include expressions of
>> language that are not true, then it errs.
>
> WRONG, if a field overloads the term True to exclude expressions that
> are clearly True, then it errs.
>
> You conflate True with Known.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that
>>>> someone that they trust told them this statement is true. Most
>>>> people here "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust
>>>> that Gödel is correct.
>>>
>>> Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you have
>>> admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.
>>>
>>
>> If its conclusion is incorrect then all of the steps can be ignored.
>
> No, if a conclusion SEEMS incorrect, you need to see how to actually
> disprove it, or YOU need to worry that you logic system has gone
> inconsistent (which I strongly suspect it has).
>
> If you claim the 'right' answer is to just ignore a seeming valid proof
> that you find goes against your believes, then by the logic, we can just
> say that YOUR theory is wrong and we get to just ignore you and just say
> you are wrong.
>
> Do you agree to that?
>
>>
>>>>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we
>>>>>>>> also say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus,
>>>>>>>> given 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which
>>>>>>>> is true...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's
>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by
>>>>>>>> applying truth preserving operations beginning with Curry's
>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem
>>>>>>> was not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>>>>>
>>>>> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the
>>>>> standard definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>>>>
>>>> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
>>>> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
>>>> contradict it.
>>>
>>> I have no reason to believe that you have any understanding of how
>>> truth 'really works'.
>>>
>>
>> Analytic truth is nothing more that a semantically connected set of
>> expressions of language each one known to be true.
>
> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of black
> cats doesn't contain all cats.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When
>>>>> you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you
>>>>> always necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically
>>>>> presenting a non-sequitur.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly
>>>> ridiculously characterized as non-sequitur.
>>>
>>> If you think the latter follows from the former you then you need a
>>> course in remedial logic.
>>
>> If you start with expressions of language that are known to be true
>> (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) and only apply truth
>> preserving operations you don't end up with peanut butter.
>
> But you also do get you all Truths.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>  > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor
>>>>> false:
>>>>>  > "What time is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
>>>>> undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural
>>>>> language at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language
>>>> that very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example
>>>> form formal language that are not truth bearers are placed in the
>>>> incorrect category of undecidable.
>>>
>>> There is no category in formal systems analogous to interrogatives.
>>
>> There is one yet not one that you are aware of.
>>
>> This is not my idea:
>> Questions are merely propositions with a missing piece.
>>
>>> You seem to not grasp the distinction between ontology and
>>> epistemology. Whether we can *determine* whether a statement is true
>>> or false is an epistemological issue which has no bearing at all on
>>> whether the statement actually *is* true or false.
>>>
>>
>> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
>> representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
>> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities
>> that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>
>>>> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
>>>> resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
>>>> definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art
>>>> make their own error inexpressible.
>>>>
>>>> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>>>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and
>>>> determine cognitive categories.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>>>
>>> Both a mischaracterization and utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ such
>> that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).
>>
>> The above simply ignores the case where a syntactically correct
>> expression of a formal language is unprovable simply because at the
>> semantic level it is self-contradictory.
>
> Except the problem in question is NOT self-contradictory, which you
> don't understand.
>
> Halting( H^ applied to <H^>) HAS a correct answer, so the question is
> NOT self-contradictory.
>
> H just can't give that answer, because it uses a copy of H.
>
>>
>>>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only
>>>>>> truth preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known
>>>>>> to be true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are
>>>>>> sound, else unsound.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category
>>>>> errors above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not
>>>>> propositions (which is what Gödel is concerned with).
>>>>
>>>> I will use more generic language that has not been overridden
>>>> idiomatic terms-of-the-art meanings.
>>>>
>>>> expressions of language that were derived by applying truth
>>>> preserving operations to expressions of language known to be true
>>>> necessarily derive true expressions of language.
>>>>
>>>>> And 'expressions of formal or natural language' don't 'apply truth
>>>>> preserving operations'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
>>>> operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge
>>>> ontology that specifies all of the general knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only
>>>>>> truth preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are
>>>>>> valid, else invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> That sentence is incoherent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
>>>> expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.
>>>
>>> If one starts with true premises and uses valid deductive rules one
>>> is guaranteed to arrive at true conclusions. That does *NOT* entail
>>> that every true statement can be derived from some set of axioms
>>> using valid deductive rules.
>>>
>>
>> For the body of analytic knowledge that includes all of mathematics
>> and logic an expression of language is true if:
>> (1) It is stipulated to be true like Curry's elementary theorems
>> (2) It is derived from applying truth preserving operations to (1) or
>> (2).
>
> Nope, you are PRESUMING a wrong definition of True. You are stating was
> is PROVABLE or KNOWN, not what is True.
>
> Yes, items that are True but unproven are not part of the Body of
> analytic knowledge, but knowledge is NOT a limitation of Truth.
>
>>
>>>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of
>>>> expressions of language then logically entailed expressions of
>>>> language are derived.
>>>>
>>>>>> valid reasoning requires conclusions to be a necessary consequence
>>>>>> of the premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not contradicted by Gödel. He would agree with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> The key mistake is that he believes that his sentence is true and
>>>> unprovable which is analogous to a purebred cat that is a kind of dog.
>>>
>>> Gödel makes no claims at all about the truth or falsehood of Gödel
>>> sentences.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> He says that it is true that G is unprovable. The only way that we can
>> know that G is unprovable is by a proof that G is unprovable, hence
>> proving that G is provable.
>>
>
> Nope, you make the mistake that we need to KNOW something for it to be
> True.
>
> Again, one of the statements about the 3*x+1 sequence is true, by
> definition, but we have not proven it. Thus while we don't know the
> answer, we know that one of the sentence MUST be True, thus we know the
> existance of a set of sentences, one of which MUST be true, but none of
> which are proven.
>
> THAT is a piece of Knowledge.

On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>
>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
>> number of proof steps.
>>
>
> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that are
> connected together semantically.
>
>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this is
>> what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things can be
>> shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an uncountable
>> number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not handle, thus it
>> can establish facts that are not Analytically provable.
>>
>
> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there is
> no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.

But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern that H
can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly indicates that
the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown that no such pattern
exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses and then goes to H.Qn
means that there IS a number K > N such that H^ applied to <H^> halts in
K steps, thus H was wrong.

>
>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite. The
>> problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to make a
>> valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time, and thus it
>> fails.
>>
>
> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent and
> knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
> infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>
>

Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.

That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.

I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops, just that it
can not detect an actual infinite loop in H^ applied to <H^> and go to
H.Qn (for H^ built on that H).

>
>> It needs to find a value N that is greater than N + k where k > 0, and
>> just assumes it can find one, when it doesn't exist.
>>
>> Missing out on the details of the infinite leads to Fallacious and
>> Invalid Logic, so your proof just FAILS.
>>
>
>

On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>
>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
>>> number of proof steps.
>>>
>>
>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that are
>> connected together semantically.
>>
>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this is
>>> what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things can be
>>> shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an uncountable
>>> number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not handle, thus it
>>> can establish facts that are not Analytically provable.
>>>
>>
>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there
>> is no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.
>
> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
> fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern that H
> can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly indicates that
> the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown that no such pattern
> exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses and then goes to H.Qn
> means that there IS a number K > N such that H^ applied to <H^> halts in
> K steps, thus H was wrong.
>
>>
>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite.
>>> The problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to
>>> make a valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time, and
>>> thus it fails.
>>>
>>
>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
>> infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>
>>
>
> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>
> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>
> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,

You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
infinite loop.

> just that it
> can not detect an actual infinite loop in H^ applied to <H^> and go to
> H.Qn (for H^ built on that H).
>
>>
>>> It needs to find a value N that is greater than N + k where k > 0,
>>> and just assumes it can find one, when it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Missing out on the details of the infinite leads to Fallacious and
>>> Invalid Logic, so your proof just FAILS.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/24/22 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/23/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2022 6:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snippage
>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a
>>>>>>> 100% complete rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both
>>>>>>> true and unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the
>>>>>> same wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once
>>>>> one comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth
>>>>> itself actually works.
>>>>
>>>> Which 'self-evident truth' is that?
>>>
>>> The actual knowledge ontology structure of the body of analytic
>>> knowledge.
>>>
>>>> Note that you have a bad track record of assuming that things which
>>>> are demonstrably false are 'self-evidently true'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do use some terminology somewhat inconsistently with its
>>> conventional meaning to overcome [strong linguistic determinism] that
>>> makes the ideas that I need to express otherwise inexpressible.
>>
>> Maybe you need to MISUSE terms because the ideas you have are not just
>> otherwise inexpressible but actually IMPOSSIBLE (or incompatible with
>> the field you are trying to work in).
>>
>>>
>>> strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
>>> cognitive categories.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>>
>> And maybe you should look at the fact that you can't use the terms
>> correctly means that your world view doesn't match the reality of the
>> field.
>>
>>>
>>>> Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
>>>> talking about theories of arithmetic.
>>>
>>> The body of analytic truth encompasses all of mathematics and logic
>>> and only excludes knowledge that can only be validated by input from
>>> the sense organs.
>>
>> Then it needs to handle the fact that not all truths are provable.
>>
>> Otherwise, you need to PROVE your statement without assuming it.
>>
>> You still haven't answered the challenge of 3x+1, that one of the
>> statements MUST be true, but neither might be provable.
>>
>>>
>>>> The analytic/synthetic distinction is one made when discussing
>>>> philosophy of language which deals with entirely different questions
>>>> than arithmetic does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The notion of analytic truth is the foundation of all mathematics and
>>> logic.
>>
>> No, the notion of analytic PROOF is the foundation of mathematics.
>>
>>>
>>>> Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different
>>>> meanings. You can't just assume that it is possible to import
>>>> concepts from one field to another.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If one field overloads the term "true" to include expressions of
>>> language that are not true, then it errs.
>>
>> WRONG, if a field overloads the term True to exclude expressions that
>> are clearly True, then it errs.
>>
>> You conflate True with Known.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that
>>>>> someone that they trust told them this statement is true. Most
>>>>> people here "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust
>>>>> that Gödel is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you
>>>> have admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If its conclusion is incorrect then all of the steps can be ignored.
>>
>> No, if a conclusion SEEMS incorrect, you need to see how to actually
>> disprove it, or YOU need to worry that you logic system has gone
>> inconsistent (which I strongly suspect it has).
>>
>> If you claim the 'right' answer is to just ignore a seeming valid
>> proof that you find goes against your believes, then by the logic, we
>> can just say that YOUR theory is wrong and we get to just ignore you
>> and just say you are wrong.
>>
>> Do you agree to that?
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>>>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we
>>>>>>>>> also say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣.
>>>>>>>>> Thus, given 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary
>>>>>>>>> statement which is true...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's
>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by
>>>>>>>>> applying truth preserving operations beginning with Curry's
>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem
>>>>>>>> was not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the
>>>>>> standard definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
>>>>> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
>>>>> contradict it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no reason to believe that you have any understanding of how
>>>> truth 'really works'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Analytic truth is nothing more that a semantically connected set of
>>> expressions of language each one known to be true.
>>
>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of black
>> cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When
>>>>>> you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>>>>> you always necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically
>>>>>> presenting a non-sequitur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly
>>>>> ridiculously characterized as non-sequitur.
>>>>
>>>> If you think the latter follows from the former you then you need a
>>>> course in remedial logic.
>>>
>>> If you start with expressions of language that are known to be true
>>> (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) and only apply truth
>>> preserving operations you don't end up with peanut butter.
>>
>> But you also do get you all Truths.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor
>>>>>> false:
>>>>>>  > "What time is it?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
>>>>>> undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural
>>>>>> language at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language
>>>>> that very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example
>>>>> form formal language that are not truth bearers are placed in the
>>>>> incorrect category of undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> There is no category in formal systems analogous to interrogatives.
>>>
>>> There is one yet not one that you are aware of.
>>>
>>> This is not my idea:
>>> Questions are merely propositions with a missing piece.
>>>
>>>> You seem to not grasp the distinction between ontology and
>>>> epistemology. Whether we can *determine* whether a statement is true
>>>> or false is an epistemological issue which has no bearing at all on
>>>> whether the statement actually *is* true or false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses
>>> a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
>>> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities
>>> that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>>
>>>>> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
>>>>> resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
>>>>> definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art
>>>>> make their own error inexpressible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>>>>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and
>>>>> determine cognitive categories.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>>>>
>>>> Both a mischaracterization and utterly irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ such
>>> that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).
>>>
>>> The above simply ignores the case where a syntactically correct
>>> expression of a formal language is unprovable simply because at the
>>> semantic level it is self-contradictory.
>>
>> Except the problem in question is NOT self-contradictory, which you
>> don't understand.
>>
>> Halting( H^ applied to <H^>) HAS a correct answer, so the question is
>> NOT self-contradictory.
>>
>> H just can't give that answer, because it uses a copy of H.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only
>>>>>>> truth preserving operations beginning with a set of premises
>>>>>>> known to be true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems)
>>>>>>> are sound, else unsound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category
>>>>>> errors above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not
>>>>>> propositions (which is what Gödel is concerned with).
>>>>>
>>>>> I will use more generic language that has not been overridden
>>>>> idiomatic terms-of-the-art meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> expressions of language that were derived by applying truth
>>>>> preserving operations to expressions of language known to be true
>>>>> necessarily derive true expressions of language.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And 'expressions of formal or natural language' don't 'apply truth
>>>>>> preserving operations'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
>>>>> operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge
>>>>> ontology that specifies all of the general knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only
>>>>>>> truth preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are
>>>>>>> valid, else invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sentence is incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
>>>>> expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.
>>>>
>>>> If one starts with true premises and uses valid deductive rules one
>>>> is guaranteed to arrive at true conclusions. That does *NOT* entail
>>>> that every true statement can be derived from some set of axioms
>>>> using valid deductive rules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For the body of analytic knowledge that includes all of mathematics
>>> and logic an expression of language is true if:
>>> (1) It is stipulated to be true like Curry's elementary theorems
>>> (2) It is derived from applying truth preserving operations to (1) or
>>> (2).
>>
>> Nope, you are PRESUMING a wrong definition of True. You are stating
>> was is PROVABLE or KNOWN, not what is True.
>>
>> Yes, items that are True but unproven are not part of the Body of
>> analytic knowledge, but knowledge is NOT a limitation of Truth.
>>
>>>
>>>>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of
>>>>> expressions of language then logically entailed expressions of
>>>>> language are derived.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> valid reasoning requires conclusions to be a necessary
>>>>>>> consequence of the premises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not contradicted by Gödel. He would agree with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>> The key mistake is that he believes that his sentence is true and
>>>>> unprovable which is analogous to a purebred cat that is a kind of dog.
>>>>
>>>> Gödel makes no claims at all about the truth or falsehood of Gödel
>>>> sentences.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> He says that it is true that G is unprovable. The only way that we
>>> can know that G is unprovable is by a proof that G is unprovable,
>>> hence proving that G is provable.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you make the mistake that we need to KNOW something for it to be
>> True.
>>
>> Again, one of the statements about the 3*x+1 sequence is true, by
>> definition, but we have not proven it. Thus while we don't know the
>> answer, we know that one of the sentence MUST be True, thus we know
>> the existance of a set of sentences, one of which MUST be true, but
>> none of which are proven.
>>
>> THAT is a piece of Knowledge.
>
> The way that analytic truth actually works in the body of analytic
> truth: a set of true sentences that are connected together semantically,
> rules over how it works for every subset of this body such as math and
> logic.
>

On 2/24/22 10:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/23/22 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2022 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/23/22 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages with this in the header that will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the aioe.org NNTP server and not to any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't remember who) already pointed out this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error to you when you were claiming the poster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possibly false until independently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to reverse-engineer complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they do not correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I have corrected the errors in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have is gibberish double talk anchored in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't conform to the RULES of the field. They just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not truths, as truths by definition, conform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reality, and in a logical field, that includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with themselves then this inconsistency cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored and must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this repeating pattern can be recognized by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H even though you yourself already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not it is aborted because halting is required to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state because you give up when your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, and it FAILED.
>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>>>>>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite
>>>>>>>>> loop you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing
>>>>>>>>> anything close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day
>>>>>>>> someone might beleive you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and
>>>>>>>> abort its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks
>>>>>>>> the loop so it doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is freaking nuts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile
>>>>>>> errors
>>>>>>> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
>>>>>>> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H only partially simulates what the machine does.
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates its input until it proves that this
>>>>> input cannot possibly reach its final state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which it can only do if it NEVER aborts, because if embedded_H (and
>>>> thus H) goes to H.Qn then H^ also goes to H^.Qn and Halts.
>>>>
>>>> You keep forgetting this.
>>>
>>> I really don't have any black cats in my living room.
>>> Sure you do I can prove that you have a white dog in your kitchen.
>>>
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn has nothing to do with the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ going to
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>
>> Then you aren't working on the Halting problem and are just a
>> pathological liar.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ directly depends on embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ terminating its simulation.
>
> If embedded_H never aborted its input then Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would transition to
> Ĥ.qn ???

On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>
>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
>>>> number of proof steps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that are
>>> connected together semantically.
>>>
>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this
>>>> is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things
>>>> can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an
>>>> uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not
>>>> handle, thus it can establish facts that are not Analytically provable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there
>>> is no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.
>>
>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
>> fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern that
>> H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly indicates
>> that the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown that no such
>> pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses and then goes to
>> H.Qn means that there IS a number K > N such that H^ applied to <H^>
>> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>
>>>
>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite.
>>>> The problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to
>>>> make a valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time, and
>>>> thus it fails.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
>>> infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>>
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>
>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>
>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>
> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
> finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
> infinite loop.

LIAR.

I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>

Shows how much you understand the truth.

The (allowed) 'pathological self-reference' in H^ <H^> is what defeats H
here.

Your REPEATED misquoting of people and misuse of definitions just show
that YOU are a pathological LIAR and there is no Truth in you. YOU are
the one destined to be destroyed in the lake of fire to use the passage
you like to quote.

>
>> just that it can not detect an actual infinite loop in H^ applied to
>> <H^> and go to H.Qn (for H^ built on that H).
>>
>>>
>>>> It needs to find a value N that is greater than N + k where k > 0,
>>>> and just assumes it can find one, when it doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Missing out on the details of the infinite leads to Fallacious and
>>>> Invalid Logic, so your proof just FAILS.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
....
>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>>>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
>>>> infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>>>
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>
>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>
>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>
>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
>> finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
>> infinite loop.
>
>
> LIAR.
>
> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>
> Shows how much you understand the truth.
>
> The (allowed) 'pathological self-reference' in H^ <H^> is what defeats H
> here.
>
> Your REPEATED misquoting of people and misuse of definitions just show
> that YOU are a pathological LIAR and there is no Truth in you. YOU are
> the one destined to be destroyed in the lake of fire to use the passage
> you like to quote.

This excerpt from this thread is absolutely devastating for Olcott, not
only showing how fallacious is his claims, but how small integrity he
has.

On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
>>>>> number of proof steps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that
>>>> are connected together semantically.
>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this
>>>>> is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things
>>>>> can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an
>>>>> uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not
>>>>> handle, thus it can establish facts that are not Analytically
>>>>> provable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there
>>>> is no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.
>>>
>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
>>> fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern that
>>> H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly indicates
>>> that the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown that no such
>>> pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses and then goes
>>> to H.Qn means that there IS a number K > N such that H^ applied to
>>> <H^> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite.
>>>>> The problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to
>>>>> make a valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time,
>>>>> and thus it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>>>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
>>>> infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>>>
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>
>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>
>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>
>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
>> finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
>> infinite loop.
>
>
> LIAR.
>
> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>
> Shows how much you understand the truth.
So you acknowledge that in the C/x86, H does correctly decide that
_Infinite_Loop() never halts ?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/24/2022 11:47 AM, Python wrote:
> Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> ...
>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>>>>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot
>>>>> the infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>>>>
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>
>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>
>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
>>> finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
>>> infinite loop.
>>
>>
>> LIAR.
>>
>> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>>
>> Shows how much you understand the truth.
>>
>> The (allowed) 'pathological self-reference' in H^ <H^> is what defeats
>> H here.
>>
>> Your REPEATED misquoting of people and misuse of definitions just show
>> that YOU are a pathological LIAR and there is no Truth in you. YOU are
>> the one destined to be destroyed in the lake of fire to use the
>> passage you like to quote.
>
> This excerpt from this thread is absolutely devastating for Olcott, not
> only showing how fallacious is his claims, but how small integrity he
> has.
>

On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949
>> [0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01) c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>
> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just committed
> that fallacy of the Red Herring.

I claim that the pattern is infinite loop.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
>>>>> number of proof steps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that
>>>> are connected together semantically.
>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this
>>>>> is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things
>>>>> can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an
>>>>> uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not
>>>>> handle, thus it can establish facts that are not Analytically
>>>>> provable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there
>>>> is no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.
>>>
>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
>>> fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern that
>>> H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly indicates
>>> that the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown that no such
>>> pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses and then goes
>>> to H.Qn means that there IS a number K > N such that H^ applied to
>>> <H^> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite.
>>>>> The problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to
>>>>> make a valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time,
>>>>> and thus it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>>>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
>>>> infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>>>
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>
>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>
>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>
>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
>> finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
>> infinite loop.
>
>
> LIAR.
>

On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949
>> [0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01) c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>
> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just committed
> that fallacy of the Red Herring.

I claim that the pattern is infinite loop.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/24/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>>>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes
>>>>>> Enumerable) number of proof steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that
>>>>> are connected together semantically.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this
>>>>>> is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things
>>>>>> can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an
>>>>>> uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not
>>>>>> handle, thus it can establish facts that are not Analytically
>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that
>>>>> there is no maximum integer without having to actually count to
>>>>> infinity.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
>>>> fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern
>>>> that H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly
>>>> indicates that the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown
>>>> that no such pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses
>>>> and then goes to H.Qn means that there IS a number K > N such that
>>>> H^ applied to <H^> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite.
>>>>>> The problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to
>>>>>> make a valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time,
>>>>>> and thus it fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>>>>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot
>>>>> the infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>>>>
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>
>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>
>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
>>> finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
>>> infinite loop.
>>
>>
>> LIAR.
>>
>> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>>
>> Shows how much you understand the truth.
> So you acknowledge that in the C/x86, H does correctly decide that
> _Infinite_Loop() never halts ?
>

I don't know, because it has never been proven, just claimed.

I have no reason to believe that it can't except the feeling that you
have shown yourself to be totally incompent.

It seems you are just engaging in more examples of the Fallacy of Proof
by Example. The fact that H can get some answers right does not prove
that it can get all answer right, or even the one answer that is in
focus, that of H^ applied to <H^>.

On 2/24/22 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>>>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes
>>>>>> Enumerable) number of proof steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that
>>>>> are connected together semantically.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this
>>>>>> is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things
>>>>>> can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an
>>>>>> uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not
>>>>>> handle, thus it can establish facts that are not Analytically
>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that
>>>>> there is no maximum integer without having to actually count to
>>>>> infinity.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
>>>> fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern
>>>> that H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly
>>>> indicates that the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown
>>>> that no such pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses
>>>> and then goes to H.Qn means that there IS a number K > N such that
>>>> H^ applied to <H^> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite.
>>>>>> The problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to
>>>>>> make a valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time,
>>>>>> and thus it fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>>>>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot
>>>>> the infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>>>>
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>
>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>
>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
>>> finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
>>> infinite loop.
>>
>>
>> LIAR.
>>
>
> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >
> > On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> _Infinite_Loop()
> >> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
> >> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> >> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
> >> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> >> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
> >> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
> >
> > This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just committed
> > that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>
> I claim that the pattern is infinite loop.
>

Sure, but it still doesn't get to your inital claim that H can handle
the pattern of H^ applied to <H^> and prove that it has a
detectable/reportable infinite loop.

You keep on using the Fallacy of the Red Herring to avoid answering the
real question.

You just keep showing that you use Fallacious And Incorrect Logic for
your proofs, so you have just FAILED.

On 2/24/22 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 11:47 AM, Python wrote:
>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most
>>>>>> intelligent and knowledgeable person in the universe could not
>>>>>> possibly spot the infinite loop in the code shown below in less
>>>>>> then infinite time:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>>
>>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an
>>>> in finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer
>>>> an infinite loop.
>>>
>>>
>>> LIAR.
>>>
>>> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>>>
>>> Shows how much you understand the truth.
>>>
>>> The (allowed) 'pathological self-reference' in H^ <H^> is what
>>> defeats H here.
>>>
>>> Your REPEATED misquoting of people and misuse of definitions just
>>> show that YOU are a pathological LIAR and there is no Truth in you.
>>> YOU are the one destined to be destroyed in the lake of fire to use
>>> the passage you like to quote.
>>
>> This excerpt from this thread is absolutely devastating for Olcott, not
>> only showing how fallacious is his claims, but how small integrity he
>> has.
>>
>
> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >
> > On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> _Infinite_Loop()
> >> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
> >> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> >> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
> >> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> >> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
> >> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
> >
> > This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just committed
> > that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>
> I claim that the pattern is infinite loop.
>

But your lie is that you initially presented this as a 'proof' that H
could detect an infinite loop in its simulation of <H^> <H^> and for
that it is totally not applicable.

You lack of understanding of what is actually applicable and what
actually supports a proof of your claim is amazing.

On 2/24/2022 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>>>>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes
>>>>>>> Enumerable) number of proof steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that
>>>>>> are connected together semantically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and
>>>>>>> this is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some
>>>>>>> things can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at
>>>>>>> an uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can
>>>>>>> not handle, thus it can establish facts that are not Analytically
>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that
>>>>>> there is no maximum integer without having to actually count to
>>>>>> infinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is
>>>>> a fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern
>>>>> that H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly
>>>>> indicates that the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown
>>>>> that no such pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses
>>>>> and then goes to H.Qn means that there IS a number K > N such that
>>>>> H^ applied to <H^> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become
>>>>>>> infinite. The problem with you H is that it actually needs
>>>>>>> infinite time to make a valid decision, but it needs to make it
>>>>>>> in a finite time, and thus it fails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most
>>>>>> intelligent and knowledgeable person in the universe could not
>>>>>> possibly spot the infinite loop in the code shown below in less
>>>>>> then infinite time:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>>
>>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an
>>>> in finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer
>>>> an infinite loop.
>>>
>>>
>>> LIAR.
>>>
>>> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>>>
>>> Shows how much you understand the truth.
>> So you acknowledge that in the C/x86, H does correctly decide that
>> _Infinite_Loop() never halts ?
>>
>
> I don't know, because it has never been proven, just claimed.

_Infinite_Loop()
[00000946](01) 55 push ebp
[00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
[0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000094c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]

In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult to
tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/24/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set
>>>>>>>>>> of black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are
>>>>>>>> missing. Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes
>>>>>>>> Enumerable) number of proof steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that
>>>>>>> are connected together semantically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and
>>>>>>>> this is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some
>>>>>>>> things can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at
>>>>>>>> an uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can
>>>>>>>> not handle, thus it can establish facts that are not
>>>>>>>> Analytically provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that
>>>>>>> there is no maximum integer without having to actually count to
>>>>>>> infinity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is
>>>>>> a fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern
>>>>>> that H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly
>>>>>> indicates that the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown
>>>>>> that no such pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses
>>>>>> and then goes to H.Qn means that there IS a number K > N such that
>>>>>> H^ applied to <H^> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become
>>>>>>>> infinite. The problem with you H is that it actually needs
>>>>>>>> infinite time to make a valid decision, but it needs to make it
>>>>>>>> in a finite time, and thus it fails.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most
>>>>>>> intelligent and knowledgeable person in the universe could not
>>>>>>> possibly spot the infinite loop in the code shown below in less
>>>>>>> then infinite time:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>>>
>>>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an
>>>>> in finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no
>>>>> longer an infinite loop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>
>>>> Shows how much you understand the truth.
>>> So you acknowledge that in the C/x86, H does correctly decide that
>>> _Infinite_Loop() never halts ?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know, because it has never been proven, just claimed.
>
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>
> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult to
> tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>

Again, the deceptive clipping of quotes.

You asked me if I agreed your program could do this.

My answer was I wasn't sure because you have ever actually shown how you
probram works, or even real proof that it does. My doubts are in your
ability to program.

If you actually read my response, I agree that a properly written
program SHOULD be able to identify that case, that has never been the
question.

What this has to do with the fact that for that ACTUAL case that you
have claimed your program works for, that is H^(<H^>), when it has been
show that it give a definitionally wrong answer, I don't know, it just
shows how bad your logic is that you feel the need to resort to the
fallacy of the Red Herring.

This just PROVES how little you understand ANYTHING you are talking about.

You claim that H <H^> <H^> correctly goest to H.Qn when the definition
of the correct answer is that H <M> w goes to H.Qn IF AND ONLY IF M w
never halts, but since our case is M == H^ and w = <H^> and we know by
the construction of H^ that H^ <H^> uses a copy of H <H^> <H^> and if
that goes to H.Qn, then H^ goes to H^.Qn and HALTS. Since H was to only
go to H.Qn if the machine the input represents NEVER halts, but it does
Halt, H is BY DEFINITION WRONG, and you are proved to be a LIAR.

Your Fallacious And Invalid Logic is thus proven for what it is and you
have just FAILED.

You only 'defense' is that the definitions must be wrong, but in an
established field, definitions are what the definitions are, so you
arguement is void.

On 2/24/2022 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set
>>>>>>>>>>> of black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are
>>>>>>>>> missing. Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or
>>>>>>>>> sometimes Enumerable) number of proof steps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences
>>>>>>>> that are connected together semantically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and
>>>>>>>>> this is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some
>>>>>>>>> things can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks
>>>>>>>>> at an uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth
>>>>>>>>> can not handle, thus it can establish facts that are not
>>>>>>>>> Analytically provable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that
>>>>>>>> there is no maximum integer without having to actually count to
>>>>>>>> infinity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can
>>>>>>> is a fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite
>>>>>>> pattern that H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that
>>>>>>> correctly indicates that the pattern will repeat forever, when I
>>>>>>> have shown that no such pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N steps
>>>>>>> that H uses and then goes to H.Qn means that there IS a number K
>>>>>>> > N such that H^ applied to <H^> halts in K steps, thus H was wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become
>>>>>>>>> infinite. The problem with you H is that it actually needs
>>>>>>>>> infinite time to make a valid decision, but it needs to make it
>>>>>>>>> in a finite time, and thus it fails.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most
>>>>>>>> intelligent and knowledgeable person in the universe could not
>>>>>>>> possibly spot the infinite loop in the code shown below in less
>>>>>>>> then infinite time:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an
>>>>>> in finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no
>>>>>> longer an infinite loop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shows how much you understand the truth.
>>>> So you acknowledge that in the C/x86, H does correctly decide that
>>>> _Infinite_Loop() never halts ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, because it has never been proven, just claimed.
>>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>
>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult
>> to tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
>> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>>
>
> Again, the deceptive clipping of quotes.
>
> You asked me if I agreed your program could do this.
> > My answer was I wasn't sure because you have ever actually shown how you
> probram works, or even real proof that it does. My doubts are in your
> ability to program.
>

So you agree that it is trivial (once an x86 emulator has been provided)
to make a program that correctly reports the x86 emulation of the above
function would never halt ?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/24/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2022 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2022 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/22 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set
>>>>>>>>>>>> of black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are
>>>>>>>>>> missing. Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes Enumerable) number of proof steps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences
>>>>>>>>> that are connected together semantically.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and
>>>>>>>>>> this is what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable.
>>>>>>>>>> Some things can be shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that
>>>>>>>>>> looks at an uncountable number of Proof Steps, which Analytic
>>>>>>>>>> Truth can not handle, thus it can establish facts that are not
>>>>>>>>>> Analytically provable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that
>>>>>>>>> there is no maximum integer without having to actually count to
>>>>>>>>> infinity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can
>>>>>>>> is a fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite
>>>>>>>> pattern that H can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that
>>>>>>>> correctly indicates that the pattern will repeat forever, when I
>>>>>>>> have shown that no such pattern exists, as ANY pattern of N
>>>>>>>> steps that H uses and then goes to H.Qn means that there IS a
>>>>>>>> number K > N such that H^ applied to <H^> halts in K steps, thus
>>>>>>>> H was wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>>>>>>>>> inability to actually think about things that can become
>>>>>>>>>> infinite. The problem with you H is that it actually needs
>>>>>>>>>> infinite time to make a valid decision, but it needs to make
>>>>>>>>>> it in a finite time, and thus it fails.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most
>>>>>>>>> intelligent and knowledgeable person in the universe could not
>>>>>>>>> possibly spot the infinite loop in the code shown below in less
>>>>>>>>> then infinite time:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is
>>>>>>> an in finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no
>>>>>>> longer an infinite loop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said it could not do it for H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shows how much you understand the truth.
>>>>> So you acknowledge that in the C/x86, H does correctly decide that
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop() never halts ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, because it has never been proven, just claimed.
>>>
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>
>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult
>>> to tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
>>> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>>>
>>
>> Again, the deceptive clipping of quotes.
>>
>> You asked me if I agreed your program could do this.
>>  > My answer was I wasn't sure because you have ever actually shown
>> how you
>> probram works, or even real proof that it does. My doubts are in your
>> ability to program.
>>
>
> So you agree that it is trivial (once an x86 emulator has been provided)
> to make a program that correctly reports the x86 emulation of the above
> function would never halt ?
>

Trivial for anyone who is competent. Not sure about you.

You still seem to be stuck in the fallacy of proof by example.

Just because THAT one is detectable, it is different than the simulation
of H^ applied to <H^>.

On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:

<snip>

> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>
> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult to
> tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?

Your obtuseness knows no bounds.

No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the above is
an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you* were competent
enough to write a program to recognize this, not that such a program
could be written).

But the "infinite behaviour pattern" that your embedded_H is supposed to
recognize doesn't remotely resemble the pattern above, so the fact that
the above pattern can be trivially recognized provides *no* evidence
that the pattern found in embedded_H can be algorithmically recognized
whatsoever. Ergo, it is entirely pointless for you to keep raising this
example. It is an entirely irrelevant example; a red herring.

The "infinite recursion" you claim exists when embedded_H is applied to
<H^> <H^> requires that your embedded_H be able to recognize that H^
includes a copy of embedded_H within it, not just to find some instance
of "HERE: goto HERE" like above.

You've claimed that this can be done with string comparison, but to
compare strings you need TWO STRINGS TO COMPARE. embedded_H only takes a
SINGLE string (or rather two copies of a single string) as its input. So
what exactly is it supposed to compare this string to?

André

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

On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>
>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult
>> to tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
>> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>
> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>
> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the above is
> an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you* were competent
> enough to write a program to recognize this, not that such a program
> could be written).
>

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts
its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies infinitely nested
simulation and if does not abort its simulation then is cannot report.

This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop() not being
able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop because when H
aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop() stops running.

> But the "infinite behaviour pattern" that your embedded_H is supposed to
> recognize doesn't remotely resemble the pattern above, so the fact that
> the above pattern can be trivially recognized provides *no* evidence
> that the pattern found in embedded_H can be algorithmically recognized
> whatsoever. Ergo, it is entirely pointless for you to keep raising this
> example. It is an entirely irrelevant example; a red herring.
>
> The "infinite recursion" you claim exists when embedded_H is applied to
> <H^> <H^> requires that your embedded_H be able to recognize that H^
> includes a copy of embedded_H within it, not just to find some instance
> of "HERE: goto HERE" like above.
>
> You've claimed that this can be done with string comparison, but to
> compare strings you need TWO STRINGS TO COMPARE. embedded_H only takes a
> SINGLE string (or rather two copies of a single string) as its input. So
> what exactly is it supposed to compare this string to?
>
> André
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2022-02-24 13:33, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>
>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult
>>> to tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
>>> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>>
>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>
>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the above is
>> an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you* were competent
>> enough to write a program to recognize this, not that such a program
>> could be written).
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts
> its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies infinitely nested
> simulation and if does not abort its simulation then is cannot report.

That is a separate issue, concerned with whether the infinite recursion
you claim exists actually exists. My post wasn't concerned with that
issue (though Richard is correct)

Why not address the ACTUAL point of my post. How exactly is your
embedded_H supposed to recognize infinite recursion? Please elaborate on
the 'string comparison' you claim is involved.

André

> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop() not being
> able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop because when H
> aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop() stops running.
>
>> But the "infinite behaviour pattern" that your embedded_H is supposed
>> to recognize doesn't remotely resemble the pattern above, so the fact
>> that the above pattern can be trivially recognized provides *no*
>> evidence that the pattern found in embedded_H can be algorithmically
>> recognized whatsoever. Ergo, it is entirely pointless for you to keep
>> raising this example. It is an entirely irrelevant example; a red
>> herring.
>>
>> The "infinite recursion" you claim exists when embedded_H is applied
>> to <H^> <H^> requires that your embedded_H be able to recognize that
>> H^ includes a copy of embedded_H within it, not just to find some
>> instance of "HERE: goto HERE" like above.
>>
>> You've claimed that this can be done with string comparison, but to
>> compare strings you need TWO STRINGS TO COMPARE. embedded_H only takes
>> a SINGLE string (or rather two copies of a single string) as its
>> input. So what exactly is it supposed to compare this string to?

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

On 2/24/22 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>
>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult
>>> to tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
>>> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>>
>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>
>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the above is
>> an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you* were competent
>> enough to write a program to recognize this, not that such a program
>> could be written).
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts
> its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies infinitely nested
> simulation and if does not abort its simulation then is cannot report.
>
> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop() not being
> able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop because when H
> aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop() stops running.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between H needing to
analyse a simple infinite loop, and H needing to analyse something that
uses a copy of H in it, shows you just don't understand the problem.

You seem oblivious that before you can even create the H^ to test H
with, H has to be made into a fixed algorithm. with fully defined
behavior. This means that the argument about what woud happen if H
didn't abort at the point it does abort is irrelevent. IF you have an Ha
that aborts at a given spot looking at the input <Ha^> <Ha^> does, it
doesn't matter what a Hn looking at a <Hn^> <Hn^> would do, as that is a
DIFFERENT INPUT.

That is EXACTLY like saying cats bark because if my cat was a dog, it
would bark. You cat isn't a dog, just like your Ha that aborts is NOT
the Hn that doesn't abort. The fact that Ha can detect that <Hn^> <Hn^>
gets stuck in an infinte loop is just as irrelevent to the discussion as
your infinite_loop routine is.

FAIL.

>
>> But the "infinite behaviour pattern" that your embedded_H is supposed
>> to recognize doesn't remotely resemble the pattern above, so the fact
>> that the above pattern can be trivially recognized provides *no*
>> evidence that the pattern found in embedded_H can be algorithmically
>> recognized whatsoever. Ergo, it is entirely pointless for you to keep
>> raising this example. It is an entirely irrelevant example; a red
>> herring.
>>
>> The "infinite recursion" you claim exists when embedded_H is applied
>> to <H^> <H^> requires that your embedded_H be able to recognize that
>> H^ includes a copy of embedded_H within it, not just to find some
>> instance of "HERE: goto HERE" like above.
>>
>> You've claimed that this can be done with string comparison, but to
>> compare strings you need TWO STRINGS TO COMPARE. embedded_H only takes
>> a SINGLE string (or rather two copies of a single string) as its
>> input. So what exactly is it supposed to compare this string to?
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>
>
>

On 2/24/2022 2:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-24 13:33, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>
>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly difficult
>>>> to tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949 performs an
>>>> unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>>>
>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>
>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the above
>>> is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you* were
>>> competent enough to write a program to recognize this, not that such
>>> a program could be written).
>>>
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts
>> its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies infinitely nested
>> simulation and if does not abort its simulation then is cannot report.
>
> That is a separate issue, concerned with whether the infinite recursion
> you claim exists actually exists. My post wasn't concerned with that
> issue (though Richard is correct)
>

Until it is understood that embedded_H recognizing the infinitely nested
simulation of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a categorical impossibility I
have no motivation what-so-ever to proceed to any subsequent steps.

People that are only looking for one excuse or another to reject my work
and have interest at all in understanding what I am saying must
acknowledge each incremental step of mutual agreement before I will
proceed to any subsequent steps.

> Why not address the ACTUAL point of my post.

I just explained why.

> How exactly is your
> embedded_H supposed to recognize infinite recursion? Please elaborate on
> the 'string comparison' you claim is involved.
>
> André
>
>> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop() not being
>> able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop because when
>> H aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop() stops running.
>>
>>> But the "infinite behaviour pattern" that your embedded_H is supposed
>>> to recognize doesn't remotely resemble the pattern above, so the fact
>>> that the above pattern can be trivially recognized provides *no*
>>> evidence that the pattern found in embedded_H can be algorithmically
>>> recognized whatsoever. Ergo, it is entirely pointless for you to keep
>>> raising this example. It is an entirely irrelevant example; a red
>>> herring.
>>>
>>> The "infinite recursion" you claim exists when embedded_H is applied
>>> to <H^> <H^> requires that your embedded_H be able to recognize that
>>> H^ includes a copy of embedded_H within it, not just to find some
>>> instance of "HERE: goto HERE" like above.
>>>
>>> You've claimed that this can be done with string comparison, but to
>>> compare strings you need TWO STRINGS TO COMPARE. embedded_H only
>>> takes a SINGLE string (or rather two copies of a single string) as
>>> its input. So what exactly is it supposed to compare this string to?
>