Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

"It runs like _x, where _x is something unsavory" -- Prof. Romas Aleliunas, CS 435


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
+* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
| `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|      +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Don Stockbauer
|      |`- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]( appliolcott
|      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|       +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|         `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|          `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|           `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|            `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|              `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|               `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|                `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|                 `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|                  `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
 `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
         `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          |`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          | `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
           `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
            `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
             +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             | `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |         `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
              +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
              |`- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
              `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
               `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott

Pages:123
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 23:56 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:56:47 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:56:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad> <20220218234235.00006cd9@reddwarf.jmc>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <20220218234235.00006cd9@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ePadnZx8AoKir43_nZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 47
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Ks4qGJD5tIHKc0d03OkYmlb6YeMmVasiWpH3cBMYKz9aAEv7/9QWYU3r1Anl6aGYG4jjew83tCoegy4!lia9eSu99OnulHPZXY8MiufqaLQj9gbkfdxUUK5/lYcbBNZ0IS+8GIFIAPZWEecwyKIyQWPMoQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3759
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.

When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.

FAIL.


Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.

/Flibble


Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings

The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is totally unrelated to its premises.

The key change that I am making is to the above definition of valid inference is that I am changing it back to the way it was before logic diverged from the model of the syllogism. (semantically related is required).

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes the conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 00:02 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:02:04 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:02:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
<4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2KUPJ.21827$0vE9.17210@fx17.iad>
<1pGdnYC9pcQFvY3_nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0LVPJ.37393$f2a5.202@fx48.iad>
<c5ydndJBYJQ8sY3_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlWPJ.67698$Lbb6.53667@fx45.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <OlWPJ.67698$Lbb6.53667@fx45.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <HOmdndtjt9Xhro3_nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 412
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-esYWYfj2ev9RlgP7jMTis2umf+5jSZKHiCb6kD7/udRxLJyjgf+x+kct5SQWCwRu+YlW/aRGOikpi4x!Yq4k2Yglxt5WJ/2MFQtChT7nxQFCPU6U24pCr9suruM1RsVS/XqFXh9xEOvadBWegiMI7cqSHw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 24091
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.

WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.

Try to actually PROVE your statement.

Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
words.

RED HERRING.

You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.

You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Your monument to your stupidity.

Not ONE bit of formal prpof.

FAIL.

Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
have a VERY long wait.

I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
review to make statements.

Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
its reject state.

You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.

The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.

Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
its own without being aborted.

How about our H and the H" built from it.

You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.

BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:

We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.

THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting

Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.

Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.

H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.

FAIL.


You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.

A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.

TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.

FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.

All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.

This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.

So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.

FAIL.
Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?

/Flibble


According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.

Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be reversing course now.

Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.

Here is Flibble's reply:

Flibble is a well known crank and troll.

You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
from other cranks.


I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.


Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.

You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that Truth is only something that csn be proven.

This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.

For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.

Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.


Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.

Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely on the basis of their meaning.

WRONG. Formal;
That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.

If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.


Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
logic is a branch of philosophy

https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic

But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things differently than what you want to use.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 00:29 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:30:01 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:29:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad> <20220218234235.00006cd9@reddwarf.jmc>
<ePadnZx8AoKir43_nZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<KwWPJ.17977$V7da.6782@fx13.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <KwWPJ.17977$V7da.6782@fx13.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <eO2dnfNspOyUp43_nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 65
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3VWbD9/afVGN41ZE85GXRR8TxS0n4CDAgkGm0IdrVliSIrzft34AsFIeKZ/6B1N0/Y0OdwfPtGOi+mi!evUcErUgcxrffjICmutt6Lg5imWE6jmFUJOImeonursnPTczRt7m7lNwe0xz2bAD8PC0kiRL3A==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4531
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.

When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.

FAIL.


Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.

/Flibble


Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings

The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is totally unrelated to its premises.

The key change that I am making is to the above definition of valid inference is that I am changing it back to the way it was before logic diverged from the model of the syllogism. (semantically related is required).

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes the conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises.


And what does this actual achieve? (except making it harder to do things).


It defines the notion of correct reasoning and realigns logic with Aristotle's syllogism requiring a semantic connection between the premises and conclusion.

It over-rides and supersedes the classical logic definition of logical entailment to make the word "proven" regain its common meaning.

We can no longer correctly say that "butterflies have wings" is "proven" on the basis that "cows are not dogs" and "cows are not airplanes".
The principle of explosion is also cancelled by this change.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 01:09 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:09:27 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:09:23 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me> <a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
<4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2KUPJ.21827$0vE9.17210@fx17.iad>
<1pGdnYC9pcQFvY3_nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0LVPJ.37393$f2a5.202@fx48.iad>
<c5ydndJBYJQ8sY3_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlWPJ.67698$Lbb6.53667@fx45.iad>
<HOmdndtjt9Xhro3_nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<86XPJ.71095$H_t7.13779@fx40.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <86XPJ.71095$H_t7.13779@fx40.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <aI2dnU5X7s7a3o3_nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 443
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-uFn729kYiQEZc3vdMiutaExX9bU+ciBJEv+yqSKoj43YDcOJsIcTKa5o00knaZHpQp8nI15tL3eXmIG!o5q7LGZnEEnLPOz83Rw3WTUDbZetMhRfkiRxFXehNm3uFUj0g3WgfraE3RRmZUgj+8zWteyZdw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 26173
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.

WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.

Try to actually PROVE your statement.

Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
words.

RED HERRING.

You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.

You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Your monument to your stupidity.

Not ONE bit of formal prpof.

FAIL.

Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
have a VERY long wait.

I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
review to make statements.

Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
its reject state.

You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.

The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.

Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
its own without being aborted.

How about our H and the H" built from it.

You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.

BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:

We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.

THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting

Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.

Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.

H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.

FAIL.


You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.

A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.

TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.

FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.

All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.

This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.

So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.

FAIL.
Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?

/Flibble


According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.

Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be reversing course now.

Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.

Here is Flibble's reply:

Flibble is a well known crank and troll.

You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
from other cranks.


I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.


Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.

You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that Truth is only something that csn be proven.

This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.

For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.

Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.


Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.

Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely on the basis of their meaning.

WRONG. Formal;
That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.

If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.


Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
logic is a branch of philosophy

https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic

But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things differently than what you want to use.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 02:04 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 20:04:33 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 20:04:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad> <20220218234235.00006cd9@reddwarf.jmc>
<ePadnZx8AoKir43_nZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<KwWPJ.17977$V7da.6782@fx13.iad>
<eO2dnfNspOyUp43_nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WiXPJ.82617$t2Bb.4396@fx98.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <WiXPJ.82617$t2Bb.4396@fx98.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <BZydnbNMq86szY3_nZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 97
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Uhlt+OihZfyXDT84N8NOFobsOQ3blcSr7LrnnBZc51xGokKSqwOXw6Qs/hpNMJJ0DiMPO7CBbT6CWKQ!WL+xo4NhKXWxah63seLh7mLnqKi7Gn+Ri32146d1Y1Beqa4i3wSuNqayo9XOx1heMXl0WzAHng==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5762
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.

When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.

FAIL.


Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.

/Flibble


Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings

The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is totally unrelated to its premises.

The key change that I am making is to the above definition of valid inference is that I am changing it back to the way it was before logic diverged from the model of the syllogism. (semantically related is required).

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes the conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises.


And what does this actual achieve? (except making it harder to do things).


It defines the notion of correct reasoning and realigns logic with Aristotle's syllogism requiring a semantic connection between the premises and conclusion.

Which does WHAT, ACTUALLY?

What useful statement does this allow you to prove, or false premise it allows you to keep from proving.



It over-rides and supersedes the classical logic definition of logical entailment to make the word "proven" regain its common meaning.

No, it doesn't. since the need to prove your arguement means that the conclusion actually has been proven.

I suppose the one advantage would be it would disallow arguements based on always false premises, which can then 'prove' false conclusions, but that arguement can't actually be used anyway (even though you try).


We can no longer correctly say that "butterflies have wings" is "proven" on the basis that "cows are not dogs" and "cows are not airplanes".
The principle of explosion is also cancelled by this change.


Except that you never could say that, all you could say is that butterflys have wings because it has been proven that since caows are not dogs and cows are not airplains together are sufficient to show that butterflies have wings. Which is true,

Although it is true that butterflies have wings it is incorrect to conclude this entirely on the basis that cows are not dogs and cows are not airplanes.

That is why my correction to the definition of a valid argument is required.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 02:19 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 20:19:45 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 20:19:42 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad> <20220218234235.00006cd9@reddwarf.jmc>
<ePadnZx8AoKir43_nZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <supjir$g33$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <supjir$g33$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <e4KdnXyEcZBczo3_nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 60
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vaTag4jrZ9NeKzAdDB2MDGxI84LXWj8++/2ipfXO7GJ++1YVOZpdSHAXE0zucJzyBtEBm2jzD3nA1+G!63btXB9yg+2c9BsVdy5lJS0GGK53i5454uXeiC7g2ZtwenlOTmU4LEKr19+3m/d1YCwRzbpHMw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4344
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.

When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.

FAIL.


Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.

/Flibble


Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings

The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is totally unrelated to its premises.

You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you think you are pointing to exists only in your head.

André


According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.

In any case the divergence from the semantic relevance required by the syllogism is restored when we simply say that a valid argument requires that the conclusion be a necessary consequence of the premises. The other way to say this is that the conclusion is only derived by applying truth preserving operations to the premises.

This change also gets rid of the principle of explosion.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 02:48 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 20:48:04 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 20:48:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
<4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2KUPJ.21827$0vE9.17210@fx17.iad>
<1pGdnYC9pcQFvY3_nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0LVPJ.37393$f2a5.202@fx48.iad>
<c5ydndJBYJQ8sY3_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlWPJ.67698$Lbb6.53667@fx45.iad>
<HOmdndtjt9Xhro3_nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<86XPJ.71095$H_t7.13779@fx40.iad>
<aI2dnU5X7s7a3o3_nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%zXPJ.52845$Tr18.11465@fx42.iad>
<Wrudnc8FRsRkzY3_nZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ysYPJ.45218$iK66.30665@fx46.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ysYPJ.45218$iK66.30665@fx46.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <M8udnV16NsH5x43_nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 504
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ppgUM7M9IAq3laYtVhOqwF4W77WrXUMJwRu6AA4moMlFI6wm9p+fHotrd1sCIfPiYVJOF7vl4VWQHzT!bPREdixUayjlK2bkqa9lqgu8QHJ4CqO45rTMwpb0qaJJgrT3Y/HjVc+gGBHzaLTVtmX6+e06Tw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 30215
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 7:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.

WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.

Try to actually PROVE your statement.

Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
words.

RED HERRING.

You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.

You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Your monument to your stupidity.

Not ONE bit of formal prpof.

FAIL.

Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
have a VERY long wait.

I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
review to make statements.

Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
its reject state.

You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.

The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.

Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
its own without being aborted.

How about our H and the H" built from it.

You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.

BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:

We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.

THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting

Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.

Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.

H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.

FAIL.


You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.

A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.

TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.

FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.

All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.

This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.

So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.

FAIL.
Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?

/Flibble


According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.

Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be reversing course now.

Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.

Here is Flibble's reply:

Flibble is a well known crank and troll.

You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
from other cranks.


I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.


Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.

You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that Truth is only something that csn be proven.

This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.

For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.

Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.


Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.

Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely on the basis of their meaning.

WRONG. Formal;
That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.

If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.


Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
logic is a branch of philosophy

https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 14:10 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 08:10:41 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <suqtp2$6o7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad> <20220218234235.00006cd9@reddwarf.jmc>
<ePadnZx8AoKir43_nZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <supjir$g33$1@dont-email.me>
<e4KdnXyEcZBczo3_nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <supveh$m8a$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 14:10:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="61d6af48253be46da1aabbd33d9ecbc2";
logging-data="6919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18e6AVEfU3GbqYSCK+/oMiB"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vUma1C5wSpFwQ6usXDLcN4Ug+ts=
In-Reply-To: <supveh$m8a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
View all headers
On 2/18/2022 11:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2022-02-18 19:19, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.

When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.

FAIL.


Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.

/Flibble


Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings

The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is totally unrelated to its premises.

You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you think you are pointing to exists only in your head.

André


According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.

No, it isn't. I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly reach this conclusion. But it makes it very clear that you don't understand the definition you are citing at all.


Sometimes when I come up with reasoning on the fly I make mistakes here is the correction.

The definition explicitly states that an argument is valid:
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm

My reasoning was correct my example was not apt, here is a new example:

It is raining
It is not raining
∴ George Washington is made of rakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

My correction for this divergence from correct reasoning is to define a valid argument such that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises.



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


Pages:123
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor