Re: Next move [ truth itself is broken ]From: olcottNewsgroups:
comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Mon, 9 May 2022 03:20 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4
View all headers
On 5/8/2022 9:28 PM, Python wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
On 5/8/2022 6:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
Mr Flibble <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaboratedSeriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D
by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
First up: functional requirements.
When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this input.
The first three pages of this paper examine this concretely as actually executed in the x86utm operating system:
Peter, you should consider seriously what's just happened with Mr
This is a very unusual, hence deserving to be pointed out, situation :
someone (Mr Flibble) wrong on Usenet (or Internet for that matters...)
admitted after only a few weeks of posting nonsense that he was actually
After all these years of crankery, could you exhibit the the same
My biggest mistake that cost me credibility was that I was not
using the conventional terms of the art in their conventional way.
Now I am using subtle nuances the conventional terms of the art that are too subtle for anyone besides one computer science professor that I have spoken with.
I have never been wrong in the essence of what I have been saying.
The reason that I keep going on Gödel(1931), Tarski(1936), Turing(1936) is because if these things are correct then truth itself is broken.
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."