Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below) |
mail files register nodelist faq login |

Posted: 12 Minutes ago by: olcott Halting DOES NOT MEAN STOPS RUNNING, Halting means reaches its final state. |

Posted: 47 Minutes ago by: Python This is not even remotely related to your absurd claims, come on Peter! |

Posted: 1 Hour 12 Minutes ago by: olcott Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P ....[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp ....[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4 |

Posted: 1 Hour 16 Minutes ago by: olcott computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234) Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. |

Posted: 2 Hours 23 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon As near as I can figure it, Peter thinks that because H stops simulating its P input, that P never halts, because that copy never gets to the final state that a fully run P will get to. Yes, he confuses all sorts of things, forcing dis |

Posted: 2 Hours 50 Minutes ago by: Python This is quite a serious cognitive dissonance to be able to write down such a sentence and believe it. Cancer is not the worse illness you have, Peter. |

Posted: 8 Hours 9 Minutes ago by: Don Stockbauer about 10 years ago I asked about your children and you said why do you wanna know and I should've known right there to never ask about your children again but I slipped up I asked about them because I thought that after 15 years we should |

Posted: 13 Hours 34 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon H can not emulate the input P to the final state, yes. But that isn't the definition of Halting. Halting is defined by the ACTUAL MACHINE P reaching the final state, or a CORRECT (unaborted) simulation reaching the final state. P DOES |

Posted: 13 Hours 44 Minutes ago by: olcott So in other words you simply are not bright enough to understand that the emulated P can't possibly ever reach its own last instruction. I honestly can't believe that you are that stupid. |

Posted: 14 Hours 24 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon You proved that the INCOMPLETE simulation of the input by H doesn't reach a final state. NOT that the CORRECT simulation of the input by a CORRECT simulator doesn't. You just are proving that you don't know the meaning of CORRECT. (or |

Posted: 14 Hours 46 Minutes ago by: olcott The fact that I just proved that the simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its own final state conclusively proves that it is non-halting regardless of whether or not it stops running. |

Posted: 14 Hours 53 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon No, because the whole second trace is conditioned on the halt deciding of H. So, if the top level H aborts at that point, then the trace become incorrect by being incomplete (it doesn't show the FULL Halting behavior of the input, whic |

Posted: 15 Hours 29 Minutes ago by: olcott So the first invocation of H(P,P) derives this trace Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P ....[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec |

Posted: 15 Hours 41 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon Since it ISN"T correct, that is meaningless. ERROR HERE. The code below in not executed as part of the same process as the code above. You admit your claim is baseless? You can't call my claim baseless, as I fully explain my reasonin |

Posted: 15 Hours 55 Minutes ago by: olcott It is the only way that you can verify that this trace is correct: Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code |

Posted: 16 Hours 6 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon Yes, to H, not P. Unless H actually calls P, and thus loses control and the ability to abort, the instructions in P below are never actually seen by the simulation thread that is simulating the lines above. Nope, you are just so dumb |

Posted: 16 Hours 11 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon Then why do we need to "reverse-engineer" the trace? Which it seems you failed at. Maybe that is why ot took so long. It is hard to make automaticaly believable lies. No, you present the trace and people can verify it. Note, it has |

Posted: 16 Hours 16 Minutes ago by: olcott It is not a transition it is a function call. I am sure that you are pretending to be much more stupid than you are. No one is stupid enough to disagree with a programming language. |

Posted: 16 Hours 21 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon But it is a fundamental Which it isn't, and has been pointed out many times, but you seem to be to stupid to understand, or to dishonest to accept. Truth is not limited to just a single point at a time. That is the way of the carefu |

Posted: 16 Hours 46 Minutes ago by: olcott Not at all. This program took me a whole man-year. The most difficult part was to make the nested simulations work correctly. No but everyone else does to confirm its correctness because THEY DON'T HAVE IT. So then you now agree that |

Posted: 17 Hours 11 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon Interesting point, that you eed to talk about "reverse-engineering" this output implies that you don't actually have a program to generate it. You don't need to "reverse-engineer" something you have. No, that is NOT what I said, and |

Posted: 17 Hours 27 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon Right, and then the top level H aborts, so we don't get to see the rest of the correct simulaiton, which would show this embedded copy of H simulating the next embedded copy of H for its emulation of those sam e 7 instructions and then |

Posted: 17 Hours 39 Minutes ago by: olcott Software engineering experts can reverse-engineer what the correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation thus confirming that the provided execution trace is correct. They can do this |

Posted: 20 Hours 3 Minutes ago by: olcott Yes that is true, none-the-less we don't need to actually see the 237 pages of the emulation of H to know that this H must also emulate the first 7 instructions of P. |

Posted: 20 Hours 15 Minutes ago by: olcott It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly emulated by H. That you would disagree with verified facts makes you eith |

Posted: 20 Hours 15 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon So, you are doing an analysis based on the assumption that an H CAN correct simulate its input AND answer at the same time? Until your prove that such an H can exist, you need to be very careful what you derive from this analysis. Bu |

Posted: 20 Hours 19 Minutes ago by: Mr Flibble But they don't though: it is YOU who is introducing the idea of an erroneous infinitely nested simulation. /Flibble |

Posted: 20 Hours 22 Minutes ago by: olcott So you simply guess that you must be correct and totally ignore my proof that you are not. My paper shows how every conventional HP proof is refuted on the basis that the input to H(P,P) (and its TM equivalents) specifies infinitely ne |

Posted: 20 Hours 40 Minutes ago by: Mr Flibble The proofs you are attempting to refute doe not have any infinite recursion thus you continue to bark up the wrong tree. /Flibble |

Posted: 20 Hours 45 Minutes ago by: olcott That H(P,P)==0 is easily verified as correct by reverse engineering what the behavior of the input to H(P,P) would be if we assume that H performs a pure x86 emulation of its input. The x86 source-code of P specifies everything that we n |

Posted: 21 Hours 24 Minutes ago by: Don Stockbauer you know what I found in life is that if your conversational opponent has left you and you try to badger her back into talking to you again it just makes it worse the more you try to badger her to talk to you again the farther and furthe |

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon WHY? Isn't that the DEFINITION of a correct simulation. The only possible answer is that your H isn't actually a Halt Decider and thus the input P,P doesn't actually represent P(P). If this is because you claim it can't be given a repr |

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon But you don't put difffernt levels of execution in a single trace. THAT is the fact that I have pointed out and you refuse to comment on. That make YOU statement illogical. You confuse simulation with direct execution. Yes, and UNCOND |

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: olcott Every H(P,P) that is invoked or simulated must do the same thing. The simulated input to H(P,P) does not do the same thing as the directly executed P(P). This is an easily verifiable fact. It gets me very angry when people disagree with |

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: olcott That the next level execution trace of the input to H(P,P) must be identical to the first level trace. |

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope. H(P,P) always does the same thing, right? if not, H fails to be an actual computation. Since you say the outer H(P,P) returns 0, then it MUST be true that the H that P calls also returns 0, as we KNOW from your stipulation what |

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You seem tobe a good example of that. So, what actual FACT do you think I am missing? I have stated specific rules that your 'claims' fail to follow. All you have done is hurled insults. Who doesn't actually know what they are talkin |

Posted: 1 Day 12 Hours ago by: olcott No that is not what is being analyzed. H(P,P) simulates its input that calls H(P,P) that simulates its input. P(P) calls H(P,P) that simulates its input has a provably entirely different execution trace. |

Posted: 1 Day 12 Hours ago by: olcott I coined the term "ignorance squared" decades ago to account for the fact that people cannot possibly be directly aware of their own ignorance. To be directly aware of their own ignorance requires them to contrast their ignorance with t |

Posted: 1 Day 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Right, P(P) calls H(P,P) which is defined to simulate this input and decide that its input is non-halting, and abort its simulation and return a 0 so P(P) halts. THAT is the behavior that the x86 source-code specifies when we add your |

Posted: 1 Day 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Just shows you are lying. I think you are afraid that people DO have the technical skills to evaluate your work and if you show what you have done you will be utterly humiliated. You have taken EXTREAMLY long times to do anything prog |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: olcott The code does exactly what its x86 source-code specifies. |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: olcott That they don't understand that they don't need to see this conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical skills to evaluate my work. |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope. Can't be and meet the definition of Correct Simulation, at least in the context of a Halting Decider. What is YOUR definition of a Correct Simulation, if it doesn't need to match that actual behavior of that which is simulated? |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, people wouldn't be confused, No, you are just proving that you don't know what a proof is. You post LIES of traces, that people are calling you out on. Only of YOU. Someone who claims that no one can understand there work in the |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: olcott The correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) and the direct execution of P(P) are not computationally equivalent thus need not have the same halting behavior. |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: olcott If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure in 50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace then showing them much more than this |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You don't have the technical competenct to write a correct paper, or the ability to correctly recognize infinite recursion at the x86 assembly level, since you have shown that P(P) Halts, and thus CAN'T have infinite recursion, because |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon ERROR IN TRACE. THE FOLLOWING DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN, AND IS A LIE> No, H is just imagining this, because it is using incorrect logic and comes up with a wrong answer. You are just showing YOUR technical incompitence in making your |

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of emulationg the input, like I mentioned. If H is actually emulating the code, then the "instructions" of the second level are never actually executed, are they? Maybe YOU |

Posted: 1 Day 14 Hours ago by: olcott There is infinitely nested simulation in the Linz proof but you will not be able to begin to understand that until we go through many steps of my other proof first. |

Posted: 1 Day 14 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble Given that there is no infinite recursion in the proof you are trying to refute then what is the point in going through your proof given it is based on a false premise? /Flibble |

Posted: 1 Day 15 Hours ago by: olcott If you keep changing the subject we will never get any closure on any point. To actually understand my proof we must move point by point one-at-at-time achieving mutual agreement on each point before moving on to the next point. The C |

Posted: 1 Day 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble But that doesn't happen in the proofs you are attempting to refute as THERE IS NO INFINITE RECURSION PRESENT IN THOSE PROOFS. /Flibble |

Posted: 1 Day 15 Hours ago by: olcott If you can recognize infinite recursion then you know that when one function calls another function with the same parameters from the same machine address twice in sequence that this specifies infinite recursion. |

Posted: 1 Day 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble We have been over this. I am quite capable of recognizing infinite recursion but, crucially, I can also recognize a *lack* of infinite recursion: it is a shame that you are not capable of doing the same. /Flibble |

Posted: 1 Day 15 Hours ago by: olcott Clearly you do not have the technical competence to evaluate my paper: To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in: the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C translates into x86 |

Posted: 1 Day 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble There is no infinitely repeating pattern except the one you are making up in your head based on your misunderstanding of the halting problem theorem proof. How many times do you have to be told this? You've got nothing. /Flibble |

Posted: 1 Day 16 Hours ago by: Mutt Buncher Post it 156,334 more times you retarded mouthload of Bolivian goat testicles. |

Posted: 1 Day 16 Hours ago by: olcott Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5 |

Posted: 1 Day 16 Hours ago by: olcott Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5) This is an explanation of a key new insight into the halting problem provided in the language of software engineering. Technical computer science terms are explained us |

Posted: 1 Day 19 Hours ago by: olcott If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is) there is no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86 emulation of its input. What a pure x86 emula |

Posted: 1 Day 19 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You obviously have an reading problem. I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be traced. To say otherwise just proves you are s stupid liar, How else can you show an emulation of an emulator unless you have the |

Posted: 1 Day 19 Hours ago by: olcott You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to understand this? |

Posted: 1 Day 19 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, give me a copy of H to trace, since THAT is what should be trace and actually should be part of the input "byte" stream, but since it is just a pointer, you can't really tell how long the input is. The other option is right after t |

Posted: 1 Day 21 Hours ago by: olcott H does not have a fixed algorithm to abort at any point prior to the first nested simulation, thus you are still required to show what the correct emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation. An |

Posted: 1 Day 21 Hours ago by: olcott It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You must show this for one simulation and one nested simulation. Failure to do this will be construed as a dire |

Posted: 1 Day 22 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Maybe a bad assumption! WHY? That isn't the trace of *A* execution. This is mixing two different traces, which is a logical error. Like I said, unless you give me the code for H, how can I show how it emulates its input. You are jus |

Posted: 1 Day 22 Hours ago by: olcott The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. You are required to show the execution trace of the input to H(P,P) under that assumption for one emulation and one nested emulation. The one that you provided for the emulation |

Posted: 1 Day 22 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that is PART of P. It would begin as: machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== |

Posted: 1 Day 22 Hours ago by: olcott You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for your damned lies will be considered direct a |

Posted: 1 Day 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT. No execution path from P actually CALLS another copy of P, as your trace implies. Remember, an execution trace is supposed to show the sequence of instructions that a CPU would actually execu |

Posted: 2 Days ago by: olcott It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be. To reverse-engineer this e |

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Do you think that if a civilization is stupid enough to produce nuclear weapons that it should be destroyed by them? |

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Do you think Putin will kick off World War III? |

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Well, it was all over at the point that you came back to this user group and started mean mouthing me here I've wasted all this additional time oh well I have nothing better to do so why not |

Posted: 2 Days 11 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer once I am noticed is there is a potential infinity of a lot of different things like emails I can be sent letters that can be handwritten and sent potential means well I take handwritten letters you can get letters from someone not an inf |

Posted: 2 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer So go think about it some and when you've come to the realization that you can't steal someone's identity by only knowing their age and gender and such then go ahead and send me another letter. Kind of a shame I did like riding to you |

Posted: 2 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope/ |

Posted: 2 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope. |

Posted: 2 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope. |

Posted: 2 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT IS PROVIDED THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT THE TRACE PROVIDED IS CORRECT. |

Posted: 2 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT IS PROVIDED THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT THE TRACE PROVIDED IS CORRECT. |

Posted: 2 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT IS PROVIDED THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT THE TRACE PROVIDED IS CORRECT. |

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: Ben I don't lie. Your trace does not show what you claim H is doing. And having admitted to editing the traces, no one is going to believe you. But I urge you, most forcefully, to find someone to review your claims who you have enough res |

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You mean replace yourself? The other people are not lying, you are. LIE. H does NOT do a "Pure Simulation" by the meaning of the words, since it can abort its simulation. There is no such thing as Conditional Unconditional processing |

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott I can simply upgrade to smarter people that don't lie. They would be able to confirm that the execution trace of the first 7 instructions of the input to H(P,P) is the execution trace of P. Malcolm already did that. When I tell them th |

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer So just let me know when we can set aside this theft of identity thing and get back to etiting letters. |

Posted: 3 Days 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon But it is easy to convert the sparce matrix into a dense one with a simple mapping layer, and if you keep the inverse map around it is still simple to make your output (and keep even that O(1)) The other option is to use a hash table t |

Posted: 3 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott Normally for a DFA one always has O(1) because the current input and current state are in a fully populated matrix. When the current state, current input are in a sparse matrix a fully populated matrix wastes too mach space. In this ca |

Posted: 3 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon My design is O(1) for state transitions, so it scales even better. (Bit more overhead on reading in the design, but is O(1) for running) |

Posted: 3 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott I have been sick from chemotherapy. I almost had to go the the hospital again last night. I had to spend two days in the hospital three weeks ago. My design scales much better than Ben's design. Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitio |

Posted: 3 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon NOPE, Becaue P calls H, but the trace doesn't show anything in H. H is defined to EMULATE its input, not call it. So, why don't we see the EMULATION of H EMULATING P? Just shows you are LYING, and presenting a FALSE trace. |

Posted: 3 Days 17 Hours ago by: Python Peter Olcott wrote: |

Posted: 3 Days 17 Hours ago by: olcott ONE CAN VERIFY THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE IS CORRECT ON THE BASIS THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) CORRESPONDS TO THE BEHAVIOR SPECIFIED BY THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF P WHERE H(P,P) CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT THAT CALLS H( |

Posted: 3 Days 18 Hours ago by: Richard Damon But the trace is false, so the application of the rule is incorrect. H sees P calling H which CONDITIONALLY simulates P which calls H The CONDITIONAL simulation break your "rule" FAIL Nope, you have just proved that YOU are INCOMPETE |

Posted: 3 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott ANYONE WITH SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE THAT IS NOT A GOD DAMNED LIAR KNOWS THAT I ALREADY TOTALLY PROVED MY POINT THAT H(P,P)==0 IS CORRECT. #include <stdint.h> #define u32 uint32_t void P(u32 x) { if (H(x, x)) HERE: goto |

Posted: 3 Days 22 Hours ago by: Richard Damon The LIE starts here. NO CPU will go to address 00001352 as a result of a call 000011A2. Thus, this is NOT a correct trace. Since you are basing you analysis on a FALSE trace, your results are invalid. You are just proving that your s |

Posted: 3 Days 22 Hours ago by: Richard Damon But that isn't what the trace shows. The second trace of P is NOT what actually happens. But it DOES have inpact on the copy of P that calls it, and because H needes Except that you don't correctly emulate the REST of P, which inc |

Posted: 3 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott A confusing mess of ridiculously complex and totally irrelevant information that you have consistently proven incapable of comprehending. Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][0 |

Posted: 3 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott It is a little annoying that I have to say this 150 times and people can't remember that I said it even once. I take this as head games. H(P,P) emulates its input that calls H(P,P) that emulates its input. Because H only emulates the f |

Posted: 4 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Sitting by my mailbox, hoping for your letter |

Posted: 4 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott I only want to treat you fairly and with honesty. Now that you have finally demonstrated excellent programming skills I finally have a basis to know a key aspect of your technical skills that were never previously confirmed. Anyone wi |

Posted: 4 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon HOW? A decider is a computation that halts for all inputs. A Computation is a merely a model of calculation based on a well defined algorithm. But that IS the question, can you actually make a Computation that can decide on the Hal |

Posted: 4 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, how do you use the meaning of the words in "The Square of the Hypotonuse of a right triangle is equal to the sume of the squares of the other two sides" to show it is true? I think you will have problems. |

Posted: 4 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon And the trace starts to LIE right here unless H actually calls P But H is seeing things, since it is looking at an incorrect trace, unless the H that P called did just call P, then H is proven to NOT be a computation as H(P,P) does di |

Posted: 4 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott Your definition of halt decider contradicts the definition of a decider and also contradicts the definition of a computation, thus is incorrect. When we restrict the definition of a halt decider to a computation then H(P,P)==0 is a cor |

Posted: 4 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Only if H isn't a Halting Decider. Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct. DEFINITION. So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer to the Halting Problem? That just PROVES the Theorem you are |

Posted: 4 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott ON THE BASIS OF THE X86 MACHINE CODE PROVIDED FOR P AND THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P PROVIDED BY H IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P IS THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P THAT WOULD OCCUR IF H PERFORMED A PURE SIMULATION OF THE FIRST 13 I |

Posted: 4 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation. int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7). |

Posted: 4 Days 23 Hours ago by: Ben Then H is not a halt decider: X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The two "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computa |

Posted: 4 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by knowing those meanings. |

Posted: 5 Days ago by: Don Stockbauer I don't want to badger you or anything, but if you want to prove that you were not a fake all along you're going to have to write me another letter. |

Posted: 5 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either. You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about. It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a |

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Absolutely NOT. There does NOT need to be proof that something is true. IF you want to claim that, by YOUR definition, you need to actually PROVE it. And, you can't do that by assuming it, you need to actually PROVE it from the accept |

Posted: 5 Days 4 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer oh well if two people have a temporary disagreement they usually get back together . the part I don't like is it might be tomorrow or in a week or a month or in a year or 10 years , you just never know , so you go about doing other things |

Posted: 5 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott Unless and Until a (possibly unknown) connection exists between an expression of language back-chained by sound deductive inference steps to known truth, the expression is not true. None-the-less the sequence of inference steps must e |

Posted: 5 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott Not when they are correctly simulated by H. You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to "compute" on non-computation. Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable |

Posted: 6 Days 12 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Proof that if one person runs out of a relationship there's nothing the other person can do just waved goodbye bye-bye oh look she's headed toward the horizon now she's at the horizon waving goodbye now she's beyond the horizon and so it g |

Posted: 6 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer do you know Nick this is what we would do in the old days I'll pull your chain and you get all mad and strike back and we go back-and-forth about 100 times and then read delete all the messages we sent each other then it would start back |

Posted: 7 Days 6 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I don't believe you can identify a person from just their first name, their gender and their age. |

Posted: 7 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Want to get back together? |

Posted: 8 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Which means it HAS a truth value of True or False but we don't know which. That is VERY difffernt then it having neither, which is what you have been claimiing (or at least what your words meant). This shows your confusion between Trut |

Posted: 8 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott It can only be declared as having an unknown truth value. |

Posted: 8 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope, just you making Herring in Red sauce. You are just proving your ignorance. |

Posted: 8 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Source for this "Claim". It can not be labeld "Analytically True", yes, but nothing says it can not be True. (If we can't prove it True we can not use it to actually directly prove something else, but it can be True). You seem to be sa |

Posted: 8 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott In this same way requiring a non-computation to compute is an incorrect problem definition. |

Posted: 8 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until: (1) It has been stipulated to be true. (2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of language that have been stipulated t |

Posted: 8 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box of oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category error proving you don't know what you are talking about. |

Posted: 8 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable? That means you might not know if you have Proven Something. So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, y |

Posted: 8 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in computer science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that can compute the length of a finite string in the same way that there is no non-computation that can co |

Posted: 8 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If |

Posted: 8 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of a decider. In fact, the question is "Is the Halting Function Commputable?" This means that |

Posted: 8 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is) Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof. Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC? Formal Logic STARTS with it |

Posted: 8 Days 17 Hours ago by: olcott OK great this is a key agreement between us. Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs. If it is true then there must be a |

Posted: 8 Days 18 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true. For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that i |

Posted: 8 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that. If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. N |

Posted: 8 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorith |

Posted: 8 Days 22 Hours ago by: Richard Damon WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth. The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such that the sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2 for N even doesn't eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of Fa |

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable. The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping of a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { |

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his reasoning. That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are both true and neith |

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it, That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding. Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be proved to be true. If needs to |

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott [ computer science is inconsistent ] If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning |

Posted: 9 Days ago by: olcott Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly before I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct knowledge that his reasoning is correct. His full quote is on page 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33 |

Posted: 9 Days ago by: Richard Damon WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem. You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic, or of Truth. The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that program can't be specified |

Posted: 9 Days ago by: olcott Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation. *The corrected halting problem |

Posted: 9 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper). As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have intensly studied), this statement is solely |

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic rather than most elegant bare essence. |

Posted: 9 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right. Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics (and thought it not valuable) You a |

Posted: 9 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, you are playing Humpty Dumpty? It sounds like you are just insisting on the axiom that True is Provable, which is NOT an axiom that is part of Computation Theory, and in fact has been proven that if added to this sort of field of l |

Posted: 9 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science. The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reas |

Posted: 9 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott My system rejects expressions of language that are impossibly true such as expressions that are true and unprovable. |

Posted: 9 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Then why dod you say "Possible truth", if you meant an ACTUAL truth. How about; x: there exist a number N that the 3N+1 / N/2 pattern never gets to 1 True(x | ~x) is KNOWN to be true, but isn't a Stipulated Truth or a Proven Truth by |

Posted: 9 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott Probably an unconscious strawman error, that does not contradict my original claim because it is a strawman error. True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x) I am referring to <is> true and you are referring to <might be> true, t |

Posted: 9 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope, if you can create an uncountable number of combinations, you CAN'T just use the countable number of base elements. Proving is based on creating a FINITE (or countable) sequence of steps that combine a FINITE (or countable0 number |

Posted: 9 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon The result of applying the operation of replacing N by N/2 if N is even or by 3N+1 if N is odd will eventually get you to the number 1 for all Natural numbers N > 0. This statement MUST be either True or False, by its nature, there is |

Posted: 9 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott Uncountable truths that are entirely comprised of different combinations of countable constituent parts are evaluatable on the basis of these constituents that are later recombined back into the original expression. |

Posted: 9 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Can you actually PROVE that statement, if not, by its own defintion, it isn't True. If you resort to making it an axiom, then you run into the issue that the accepted axioms define the system, and don't apply to systems that don't ta |

Posted: 9 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott Unprovable means untrue and does not mean false in Prolog. There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of language can possibly be true: (1) It is stipulated to be true. (2) It is derived by applying only truth preser |

Posted: 9 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope doesn't work. Remember, formal system are based on a finite, or perhaps extended to countable, number of base axiom. I think you basis is going to hit the problem that the number of natural language 'facts' you are entering into y |

Posted: 9 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Which means... ? Prolog, as I remember, ASSUMES that anything not provable is FALSE (not 'untrue'). So there exists an integer number N is neither Even or Odd? (it is untrue for both tests) I don't think you actually understand what |

Posted: 9 Days 17 Hours ago by: olcott Untrue means the same thing as Prolog's negation as failure. If you defined your terms correctly, then yes because this has been stipulated in your deinitions. There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of langu |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett Most "heavy duty" theorem proving programs use resolution style logic and are beholding to the fact that "false -> anything" is valid. The standard approach is to reform the theorem so that you assume that the gives, axioms, whatever a |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble An infinite recursion that only exists in your simulation and not in the proofs you are attempting to refute. Your simulation is based on a category error and is thus invalid. Give it up and do something useful with the rest of your life |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, you don't know what is still valid to use? And what does 'untrue' mean? We know that there is a number that solves an equation, but we don't know that number, or how to compute that number. Can we say that it is true that such a |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott That the execution trace provided by H(P,P) exactly matches the behavior that the x86 source-code of P specifies conclusively proves that the simulation of the input to H(P,P) is correct. How much longer are you going to deny this empi |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott Not when all of natural language semantics has been fully formalized and directly integrated into its own formal system. I created Minimal Type Theory to express HOL using very slightly adapted syntax of FOL. In an early version of MT |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott True and unprovable become impossible because Provable() is an aspect of True(). |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: Richard Damon My first thought is that if you are going to be limiting your reasoning capability to simple things. You seem to be stuck in using simple logic methods, which will limit what you can actually prove. What you don't seem to understand is |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Except you haven't show any instances where it diverges from 'correct reasoning'. You gave an example argument which was *not* valid, claimed that it was valid and that this "fact" was somehow a problem. The only problem I can see is y |

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott I am saying that I am redefining the concept of logical validity to eliminate its divergence from correct reasoning. A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary conseq |

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: Chris M. Thomasson Flip a coin; heads left, tails right. Heads, try to pop from left. Tails, try to pop from right. Just joking around here, in a sense... ;^) Actually, back in the day with my threading work, I have subdivided a lock-free stack into re |

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott Change everything that diverges from my spec: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its premises. Semantic relevance is maintained. It co |

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Abstractions are designed to cover a large number of different cases. A concrete example cannot capture an abstraction. Are you acknowledging that you haven't the foggiest idea what 'valid' means? If you're trying to say more than thi |

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, you are saying we need to throw out EVERYTHING we know and start over? I think, especially with the comment below, people will decide that your "new" logic systm isn't worth the cost to switch to. And what do you define truth pers |

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it t |

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth *assignment* under which the premises are tr |

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott (a) The Moon is made of green cheese. (b) Water is a kind of concrete. (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is not a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, th |

Posted: 9 Days 20 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a conditional statement. It has no conclusion]. And that dif |

Posted: 9 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott It categorically changes everything that is broken. {A,B} ⊢ C only when truth preserving operations are applied to {A,B} to derive C. With my correction true and unprovable is impossible, unprovable simply means untrue. An analy |

Posted: 9 Days 20 Hours ago by: Richard Damon And, have you done the basic investigation to find out how much of conventional logic you invalidate with that change? Note, that it may be hard to define "necessary consequence" in a formal matter. It should be noted that your exampl |

Posted: 9 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott *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. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to |

Posted: 9 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the aspects of the basic foundatio |

Posted: 9 Days 22 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble And what happens if Left is empty, Right is non-empty and you call pop_front()? /Flibble |

Posted: 9 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott // Tape_Type implements a two-way Turing machine tape. // Right contains Tape_Head >= 0 values (right expansion) // Left contains Tape_Head < 0 values (left expansion) // // Grows with Right.push_back() as Tape_Head increases above 0. |

Posted: 9 Days 23 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer can we get back together? I promise I won't mention your children again even though you had opened up about your ex-husband. also I figure what has contributed to all this with that lady in America that rice saucy spicy romantic novels w |

Posted: 9 Days 23 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Could you give me a 50 word summary of all that? |

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: tth Not with any version of the C language. |

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble You cannot implement all of std::deque's member functions meeting std::deque requirements using your chosen data structure of two std::vectors. /Flibble |

Posted: 10 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott All these things can be added and we end up with a simple, faster, std:deque that has most the conventional overhead and complexity abolished. It just a matter of defining more member functions. |

Posted: 10 Days 13 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble What you have does not offer what std::deque offers so is not equivalent to std::deque so can't be considered better than std::deque for the general case (I don't care about your specific use-case). /Flibble |

Posted: 10 Days 14 Hours ago by: olcott I could allow all elements to be popped from the front or the back too. Mine is much faster when you need far less than all elements. |

Posted: 10 Days 14 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble Then it is totally different to what std::deque offers: std::deque allows ALL elements to be either popped from the front or back. Try reading AND UNDERSTANDING what I wrote again. /Flibble |

Posted: 10 Days 14 Hours ago by: olcott Mine words the same way and has the added benefit of contiguous storage. I don't think that this applies to the way that I implemented it. pop_front pops from the end of Left. pop_back pops from the end of Right. This is the key aspect |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble I see you are choosing to ignore my reply in the other thread. OK, I will repost why you are wrong here: * referential integrity and iterator invalidation are different things: when you add or remove elements to either end of a |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott It is faster then std::deque. I couldn't find what you mean by referential integrity it has too many different meanings. invalidating iterators seemed to be what you mean otherwise I have no idea. |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott Good catch. I just wrote that function as a simplification. |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Looks at what indexing with an index value of 0 does. Operator [] want to test index >= 0, not > 0 |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble Because it doesn't meet the complexity and referential integrity requirements of std::deque. /Flibble |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott I didn't see any reason why it would not make a better std::deque. |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble It might be a more appropriate solution than std::deque for your specific use-case however it is NOT an improvement to std::deque for the general case -- see my reply in the other thread for why. /Flibble |

Posted: 10 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott C/C++ people please critique this as the basis for an improvement to std::deque. It seems to have the key functionality of std::deque and does it much more simply while saving time and space. https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/deque/dequ |

Posted: 10 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer you had just talked about your ex-husband in the letter before so I thought it was OK to bring up the subject of your children this is just so unfair I can't believe it but what do you do it's impossible to get past a conversation part |

Posted: 11 Days ago by: Don Stockbauer One thing that's really irritating to me is if you've had a dialogue with someone for years and years and then there is some kind of trouble and the relationship appears to be over , the irritating part is waiting around to see if the di |

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer please Nic please please let's keep our correspondence going I'm so sorry for asking about your children I admit now I was trying to get their identities to sell them into white slavery in Saudi Arabia but I meant well please I so enjoy |

Posted: 11 Days 17 Hours ago by: olcott That is utter nonsense. We can see that H(P,P) does execute a pure simulation of its input on the basis of the execution trace of P (up to the point where P would call H a second time from its same machine address with identical parame |

Posted: 11 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] The x86utm operating system was created so that every detail of the conventional halting problem counter example could be fully specified in C/x86. In computab |

Posted: 11 Days 22 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer After I die that is did you know that I've only taken one online course in my entire life and that was to get out of a traffic ticket also I've never climbed K2. |

Posted: 11 Days 23 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I've decided that I'm going to keep all your letters and probably some family member will get publication out of them |

Posted: 11 Days 23 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer may your Christmas time be special too even though it's what eight months off and and due to a stupid question I asked I will ery likely never hear from you again But it's no big deal because there have been thousands if not millions of |

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, it is verifiably INCORRECT for one with even a tiny bit of skill. Nope, the trace proves you are LYING about actually simulating the input. Trace breaks here. A CORRECT Trace would now trace the operation of the copy of H that P |

Posted: 12 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott (a) The trace is verifiably correct if one has the technical skill. (b) The trace is proved non-halting if one has the technical skill. You simply don't seem to have the technical skill. I PUT BACK IN THE MANDATORY DETAILS THAT PROVE MY |

Posted: 12 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer oh well what can a person do you ask a perfectly reasonable question in the person that you sent it to gets it all twisted around and reads false information into it and then goes back over to calm a I philosophy and it's all mean and nas |

Posted: 13 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott (a) Verify that the execution trace of P by H is correct by comparing this execution trace to the ax86 source-code of P. (b) Verify that this execution trace shows that P is stuck in infinitely nested simulation (a non-halting behavior). |

Posted: 13 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott (a) Verify that the execution trace of P by H is correct by comparing this execution trace to the ax86 source-code of P. (b) Verify that this execution trace shows that P is stuck in infinitely nested simulation (a non-halting behavior |

Posted: 13 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott void P(u32 x) { if (x86_emulate(x, x)) HERE: goto HERE; return; } int main() { Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P)); } Yet the UTM must be embedded at the same place where H would be embedded. The above P would ne |

Posted: 13 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott Now we are getting into nuances of meaning that are not commonly known. It must do so in the basis of a property specified by its input finite string. For example a decider that decides whether or not its input has a string length > 2 |

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott 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 |

Posted: 15 Days 14 Hours ago by: olcott The definition of decider requires it to based its decision on whatever its input specifies. Both H(P,P) and H1(P,P) use this exact literal byte string as their input therefore it seems enormously dishonest of you to refer to the same |

Posted: 15 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott int sum(int N , int M) { return (N + M); } It is not supposed to in the same way that sum(3,4) is not supposed to provide the sum of (5,7). Why is this so difficult for you? You know that if anyone insisted that sum(3,4) must retu |

Posted: 15 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott My H proves that H(P,P)== false on the basis that H does correctly compute the mapping from its input parameters to its own final reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input parameters. The details |

Posted: 16 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott We really only need to know that they are integers, the rest of the code explains how everything fits together. I want to make my TM interpreter as simple as possible. The purpose of this thread is to simply confirm that the implementa |

Posted: 16 Days 17 Hours ago by: olcott A turing machine is a model of a computer. It has a finite number of states, and it is capable of reading and modifying a tape. A turing machine program consists of a list of 'quintuples', each one of which is a five-symbol turing mac |

Posted: 16 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott Gödel says that it does with dodgy words that also says that it does not. 15 In spite of appearances, there is nothing circular about such a proposition, since it begins by asserting the unprovability of a wholly determinate formula ( |

Posted: 17 Days 1 Hour ago by: Don Stockbauer I saw Maude Adams five times. |

Posted: 17 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Which is Godel making a comment about G, and not a statement in G itself. G does not directly mention itself in the Theory. So this comment of mine is now proven. And you have prooved to be a Liar and an idiot, as you abolutely don't |

Posted: 17 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott They are states, what did you think that states are? This is the first draft of my transition_function() its seems to exactly match this design (page 1 of the docs) A Turing machine program consists of a list of 'quintuples', each one |

Posted: 17 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott Each TM state requires all of the information in a Quintuple thus a set of Quintuples is a set of States. Each Quintuple instance is a line of TM description source-code. When the interpreter needs to transition to another Quintuple ins |

Posted: 17 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott In Tarski's theory p <is> the formalized liar paradox. Gödel says: ....We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. |

Posted: 17 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott This trace of the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that when P calls the same function with the same parameters from the same address that H has its reject (non-halting) criteria. |

Posted: 17 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon How do you get that. In the Theory, you can't even tell that G references itself, but is just a statement about mathematics. No, because in the theory, G doesn't even reference itself, so it can't be self-contradictory. I think you |

Posted: 17 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott That the execution trace of the simulated input to H(P,P) exactly matches the behavior specified by its x86 source-code provides the ultimate measure of a correct simulation thus overriding and superseding any and all other measures. |

Posted: 17 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott I am not trying to be unkind. When people happily disagree with verified facts I construe that as playing head games for sadistic pleasure. Those people really need a strong (at least metaphorical) slap in the face. It is a proven fact |

Posted: 17 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott Both H(P,P) and H1(P,P) correctly compute the mapping from their input parameters to the halt status specified by these inputs. That you don't understand that this makes them necessarily correct seems ridiculously stupid, dishonest or |

Posted: 17 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott OK finally back to an honest dialogue. It is easily proven on the basis of verified facts that H(P,P) and H1(P,P) do correctly compute the halt function for their input parameters. That people on this forum say that they believe that t |

Posted: 17 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott You seem to have a short-circuit in your brain, I have told you this many times and you have not seen it once. H1(P,P) IS THE HALT STATUS OF P(P) H1(P,P) IS THE HALT STATUS OF P(P) H1(P,P) IS THE HALT STATUS OF P(P) H1(P,P) IS THE HALT |

Posted: 17 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer when we can get this thing straighten up about the identity of your children then we can get back to corresponding don't you think it would be better to use email rather than hand written letters to avoid the 1.20 charge and just speed up |

Posted: 17 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott |

Posted: 17 Days 17 Hours ago by: olcott From the quote below: We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. Gödel says: The analogy between this result and Richard’s antinomy leaps to the eye; there is also a close relationship with |

Posted: 17 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox. For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its ow |

Posted: 17 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott Yes this is an easily verified fact on the basis of the execution trace derived from the correct simulation of its input parameters. H2(Ha3,N,5) would get the correct halt status for Ha3. From what I recall Ha3(N,5) is merely a compu |

Posted: 17 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott If there is an actual cat in your living room and some textbook merely assumes that there are no cats in living rooms the verified fact of the cat supersedes and overrules everything that disagrees. It is a verified fact that both H1( |

Posted: 17 Days 20 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak G is not self-contradictory in either the theory or the meta-theory. The Liar Paradox and G are not the same sentence. You keep treating them as if they were based solely on Gödel's claim that there is a close relationship between th |

Posted: 17 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott Yes. Not at all. In the theory p is self-contradictory thus not a truth bearer. In the meta-theory p is NOT self-contradictory. G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in the meta-theory. |

Posted: 17 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott It is a verified fact that they both provable compute the halting function of their own input correctly. Anyone knowing the x86 language can verify this fact. |

Posted: 18 Days 1 Hour ago by: Don Stockbauer I've decided if I ever strike up another relationship with a nice young lady that I surely won't mention her children. |

Posted: 18 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope, shows you don't understand the proof. Have you actually read it, or just the 'cliff notes' version. You know, the one with the actual Except that G isn't self-contradictory. The actual G makes a statement of a mathematical probl |

Posted: 18 Days 9 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Oh well, another dialectic destroyed for some pathetic weak reason , got a pretty big collection of those by now. |

Posted: 18 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott Both H(P,P) and H1(P,P) are provably correct. |

Posted: 18 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott I am not going to go through any of your extraneous nonsense. *ALL THESE THINGS ARE EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS* Both take the machine code of P as input parameters and are provably correct simulations of this same input yet one correctly de |

Posted: 18 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott That is now proven to be factually incorrect. If the above paragraph is proven to be a fact then this proves that both H and H1 compute the halting function correctly. The above paragraph can be proven to be a fact. |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott As soon as you very carefully study every single detail of the above paragraph you will realize that it proves that I am correct as soon as the paragraph itself is proved to be factually correct. |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott The above paragraph means that it makes no mistakes in computing the halting function. This is a verifiable fact, not any mere opinion. The reason that I did the HP in C/x86 was so that every detail can be shown thus gaps in reasoning |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott *ALL THESE THINGS ARE EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS* Both take the machine code of P as input parameters and are provably correct simulations of this same input yet one correctly determines that its input halts and the other correctly determi |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I'm sorry I asked about your children , is it possible for us to make up at this late date? |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott In the same way that having a cat in your attic is proof that your car is leaking oil. It really has never made any sense how people can't understand that self-contradictory expressions of language are necessary semantically invalid. |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer The sentence you are now reading is the sentence I am now writing. |

Posted: 18 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So we can prove G in the Metatheory, so it is True in the Theory too. But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True Statement which is not provable, |

Posted: 18 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott Tarski's hierarchy of languages. It only works at a higher level language because the expression of language at the next level is not self-contradictory. All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them semantically i |

Posted: 18 Days 14 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, because it doesn't meet the requirements to be a φ As you have mentioned elsewhere, the statement of the Liar Paradox isn't a Truth Beared, which is part of the requirements built into what φ needs to be. Note, your statement of |

Posted: 18 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott |

Posted: 18 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott LP exactly meets the mathematical definition of incompleteness, this will not be clear until after I correctly formalize it and specify the formal system to which it belongs. Tarski seems to provide the best head start on formalizing t |

Posted: 18 Days 20 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I think it's for the best you see we were using the Internet in people that use the Internet it's always the chance of one person faking I and identity to the other so to protect myself against that here lately I've been just assuming any |

Posted: 18 Days 21 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer if I had only just kept my wits about me as soon as you told me you were afraid that I was going to steal your children's identity I should've immediately quit and profusely apologize for trying to do that and just return to a pleasant dis |

Posted: 18 Days 22 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer The best way to get rid of someone you don't like is to just never communicate with them again the rest of your life. |

Posted: 19 Days ago by: André G. Isaak How exactly does it 'plug right into the above'? As I just said, LP *is* provable. ¬LP is also provable. That's what it means to be a contradiction. André |

Posted: 19 Days 2 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I would've never gotten into this long monolog if I had just adhered to hofstadter's dictum and always used tit for tat . so what that does if somebody doesn't write back to you you don't write to them and that's the end of the whole sor |

Posted: 19 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Your fundamental error! Unless the system has define Truth to require provable, which mathematics hasn't, this is an error, as it isn't a fundamental error. There are many things that we know have a truth value, but are not provable o |

Posted: 19 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). The Liar Paradox plugs right in to this making it equivalent to Gödel's G. |

Posted: 19 Days 10 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Actually, it doesn't matter whether it is true or false. What's relevant here is that it is trivially easy to prove The Liar using a simple reductio ad absurdum. Unfortunately, it is equally trivially easy to prove ¬(The Liar) using a |

Posted: 19 Days 10 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Neither 'impossibly true' nor 'impossibly false' are meaningful English. I really wish you would stop using this adverb as if it somehow made sense. It doesn't. G is definitely a truth bearer. It states that a specific polynomial equa |

Posted: 19 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott No the LP is semantically incorrect. Someone here (I think its Andre) now seems to understand that if G is not provable in F then it is not true in F. If G is true it can only be true in an other different formal system than F. Tarski |

Posted: 19 Days 11 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer |

Posted: 19 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott That if correct. If is is impossibly true or false then it is not a truth bearer. unprovable in the system entails untrue in the system. Sure, yet it is only true in this system which also makes it provable in that system. It can' |

Posted: 19 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Your missing that he is meaning that if the Liar is TRUE, it shows the logic system to be inconsistent. While G being true just proves that the system is Incomplete. (G not being False in a system shows that the system is Inconsistent, |

Posted: 19 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott Not according to the mathematical definition of incompleteness Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). Anything and everything that is neither provable nor refutable in some formal system proves that this formal system IS |

Posted: 19 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott That par is exactly correct. That part has been the key error of everyone in that they all believe that is can represent something other than what it actually specifies. The correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies non-halt |

Posted: 19 Days 14 Hours ago by: olcott I consider myself to have made significant unique advancements on the single subject on the philosophical foundation of the notion of logical truth. One of my key breakthroughs is redefining the analytic / synthetic distinction such t |

Posted: 19 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Did you ever find your passport? |

Posted: 19 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott In other words you have no rebuttal either because what I said is over your head or you want to make sure to never agree that I correctly proved my point. I vote for both. |

Posted: 19 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott Not at all because H(P,P) has itself as part of its input and Hb(P,P) does not have itself as part of its input. Sure it does. The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies infinitely nested simulation where as correctly simulated |

Posted: 19 Days 16 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett T24gNS8zLzIwMjIgMToxMiBQTSwgb2xjb3R0IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBPbiA1LzMvMjAyMiAxOjMz IFBNLCBKZWZmIEJhcm5ldHQgd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiA1LzMvMjAyMiA5OjE4IEFNLCBBbmRy w6kgRy4gSXNhYWsgd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4gT24gMjAyMi0wNS0wMiAxODo1Nywgb2xjb3R0IHdy b3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+IElES |

Posted: 19 Days 18 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak But calling it a "non-truth bearer" simply because it has not been determined to be true would equally be an error. And it can be shown (i.e. correctly determined) that G is true, just not within the system for which it was constructed |

Posted: 19 Days 19 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak G is not a formalization of The Liar. There is no such formalization in the systems Gödel considers. The Liar results in inconsistency whereas G results in incompleteness. This is a major difference between G and The Liar which is wh |

Posted: 19 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). I used the above as the precise measure of isomorphism. The whole error of the incompleteness theorem is entirely anchored in that the official mathematical definition of incomplete |

Posted: 19 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott Yes that seems to be correct. On the other hand calling an expression of language true that has not be 'Correctly determined to be true' is an error. If G is claimed to be true then this assertion must be supported by: 'Correctly deter |

Posted: 19 Days 19 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer when we get back together maybe we could use email instead of letters They were costing $1.20 each so if we can go to email that would be a lot better I know for some reason you've never wanted to use emai it's just some ideas for when |

Posted: 19 Days 20 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett T24gNS8zLzIwMjIgOToxOCBBTSwgQW5kcsOpIEcuIElzYWFrIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBPbiAyMDIy LTA1LTAyIDE4OjU3LCBvbGNvdHQgd3JvdGU6DQoNCklESU9UIFNOSVBQRUQNCg0KDQo+IE5v LiBUaGUgTGlhciBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCB0byBjb25zdHJ1Y3QgYW4gKmlkZW50aWNhbCogcHJv b2YuIE90aGVyIA0KPiBhb |

Posted: 19 Days 20 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak <snippage> 'True' and 'Correctly determined to be true' mean different things. These are YOUR assumptions. They have not been demonstrated. And they are not consistent with the way in which the rest of the world talks about truth. Y |

Posted: 19 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott Expressions of language can only be correctly construed as true: (a) if they are defined to be true (b) have no contradictory elements in (a) (c) are derived by applying true preserving operations to (a) or (c) |

Posted: 19 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott Expressions that cannot be resolved in Prolog that fail the unify_with_occurs_check test proves that these expressions are semantically incorrect. It is generally the case that every expression of any natural of formal language that c |

Posted: 19 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott OK. This is not any mere assumption. The only way that any analytic expressions of language are correctly determined to be true is: (a) They are defined to be true. (b) They are derived from applying truth preserving operations to (a) |

Posted: 19 Days 21 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I'm sure we'll get back together , this was all just a big mistake. |

Posted: 19 Days 21 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak It is defined directly above. Trying reading more carefully. Here you're simply begging the question by assuming your own conclusion: that being true and being provable are the same. The whole point of Gödel's proof is that they cann |

Posted: 19 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott OK, then I am very happy to say that my accusation that you lied was not justified, we were simply talking past each other. |

Posted: 19 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott I have no idea what you mean by G-Prime. Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). It is the fact that the mathematical definition of Incompleteness simply assumes that φ is semantically correct that is the core mistake o |

Posted: 19 Days 21 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Of course really. His original proof drew on The Liar for inspiration. So a proof which draws on The Liar would be the same proof. He is saying that he could have used ANY antinomy. IOW, he could have chosen a *different* antinomy fro |

Posted: 19 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott No I can't understand what you mean. I think that I see it now, I had forgotten the notation. An input having a pathological self-reference relationship to its decider H would necessarily derive a different halt status than an input no |

Posted: 19 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott Really? That you persisted (six times) on claiming that Gödel's statement about the Liar Paradox overrode and superseded his statement about the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs to was despicably deceitful, unless you b |

Posted: 19 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott I have no idea what you mean. It is ridiculously stupid to assume that an input having pathological self-reference to its decider would have the same behavior as an input NOT having pathological to its decider. It is very easy to ve |

Posted: 19 Days 23 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak No. The Liar can be used to construct an *identical* proof. Other antinomies could be used for similar proofs. He's already talking about The Liar. You have some serious reading comprehension problems. I never denied the things Göde |

Posted: 19 Days 23 Hours ago by: Ben You are not a math guy. I am. No. G is provable. Though I did make a mistake -- the link was to a proof of G-RIT not G. How are you getting on with E and specifying P? Have you given up? |

Posted: 20 Days 1 Hour ago by: Don Stockbauer Blarp. |

Posted: 20 Days 1 Hour ago by: Don Stockbauer it's amazing how easy it is to get rid of your conversational partner just cut off all lines of communication what makes it so beautiful is you can be the laziest person on earth and it works for you because you do nothing and then you'll |

Posted: 20 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so |

Posted: 20 Days 5 Hours ago by: soc women Hi im saran, im interest with u ,i want sex with u |

Posted: 20 Days 5 Hours ago by: soc women Hey I m single nasty girls. I m looking local couples threesume sex. Anyone interested local couples for ultimate enjoy night |

Posted: 20 Days 5 Hours ago by: soc women heyyy i m sexy local girls.. i m looking interecial couples with threesome sex ultimate fun night attachment |

Posted: 20 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott It is OK that you are not a math guy. If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is a key element of his theorem. Incomplete T means that there |

Posted: 20 Days 12 Hours ago by: Ben G is provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper proof assistant, Coq. |

Posted: 20 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott It is true that G is not provable. G is not provable because it is semantically incorrect in the exactly same way that the Liar Paradox is semantically incorrect. Gödel says: 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for |

Posted: 20 Days 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Except that, I believe, in Prolog, all expression are considered to be either True or False (and default to being called false if they aren't given as True or provable by the system as True. Yes, there is a Unification test that allows |

Posted: 20 Days 14 Hours ago by: olcott Coq is not an automated theorem prover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq In other words it is based on the sound deductive inference model. |

Posted: 20 Days 14 Hours ago by: olcott I might take a look at it. The key advantage of Prolog that that by basing its analysis on facts and rules and having negation as failure it corrects all of the errors of formal logic systems. Prolog does not make the mistake of assumi |

Posted: 20 Days 15 Hours ago by: Ben And indeed there is a fully formalised proof of GIT in Coq (though I think it's the slightly tighter Gödel-Rosser version). |

Posted: 20 Days 16 Hours ago by: Aleksy Grabowski Thanks for confirmation, that's what exactly what I was trying to tell to topic poster in one of my previous posts. Prolog in it's bare form is a bad theorem solver. It wasn't designed a such. If you want to deal with such problems mayb |

Posted: 20 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon TRANSLATION: I trim out what will prove me wrong because I don't have time to think up other excuses. You are just admitting failure, if not to yourself, to anyone with a real brain. Nope, NOT extraneous, just apparently beyound your |

Posted: 20 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon IF you are defining that your logic system is limited to what Prolog can "Prove", that is fine. Just realize that you have just defined that your logic system can't handle a lot of the real problems in the world, and in particular, it |

Posted: 20 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott My key more important understanding of the fundamental architecture of Prolog is that it is anchored in sound deductive inference thus correctly all of the errors that have crept into logic since Aristotle's syllogism. Start with know |

Posted: 20 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott Yes Jeff is mostly a Jackass. Once in a very great while he says something interesting. This is very rare yet thankfully more often than never. |

Posted: 20 Days 20 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy: so it is in fact YOU who is throwing excrement at the walls, not Olcott. Attack the argument not the person, dear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem /Flibble |

Posted: 20 Days 21 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett On 5/2/2022 9:24 AM, olcott wrote: NOTHING OF VALUE I will attempt to summarize the level of the idiot's understanding of Prolog: The level is the same as of his understanding of math, logic, C, C++, software engineering, programming, p |

Posted: 20 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott I need to know more details about what is occurring internally (within Prolog) when the expressions are executed. The above quote from Clocksin & Mellish refers to getting unify_with_occurs_check to check in advance that unification w |

Posted: 20 Days 22 Hours ago by: Aleksy Grabowski As I have said previously, my example is naïve. Maybe if you will think hard enough you can make it detect such conditions, probably by writing meta-interpreter of some sort, and terminate. Personally, I don't think that using Prolog |

Posted: 20 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott That is beautiful and affirms the key element of all of my research on incompleteness. This is the mathematical definition of incompleteness: Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). It says expression φ of formal system |

Posted: 20 Days 23 Hours ago by: Aleksy Grabowski Some definitions. The part before `:-` is called head, and after is called body. Conceptually the model of execution of Prolog programs looks more-or-less as follows: 0. If predicate doesn't have body it is always true. 1. Assume t |

Posted: 20 Days 23 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I thought you were real until this identity of children thing but then I realized that anybody should know you can't steal the identity of somebody from just their name and gender and age looked to me like you wanted to get out of this |

Posted: 20 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott That is great. That shows when Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem is transformed into its barest possible essence Prolog proves it to be ill-formed. What is happening internally that causes the expression to never terminate? |

Posted: 21 Days ago by: Aleksy Grabowski "This sentence is provable" g. Both of sentences are true at the same time: both :- g, \+ g. Then query: ?- both. doesn't terminate, which is correct behavior for such paradoxical statement. Did you expect some answe |

Posted: 21 Days ago by: olcott That is great, now what happens when we encode: "This sentence is provable" in Prolog? What happens when we test both of these with unify_with_occurs_check ? None-the-less by evaluating expressions on the basis of facts (expression k |

Posted: 21 Days 1 Hour ago by: Aleksy Grabowski g :- \+ g. Then you can ask Prolog if this sentence is true: ?- g. Prolog will give you the only correct answer — no answer 🙃. Prolog by itself is a very bad theorem prover and it is very limited framework for formal logic, beca |

Posted: 21 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott I trim so that we can stay focused on the point at hand and not diverge into many unrelated points. The main way that all of the rebuttals of my work are formed is changing the subject to another different subject and the rebutting thi |

Posted: 21 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott Here is what I understand of the relationship between logic and Prolog. Prolog corrects all of the errors of classical and symbolic logic by forming the underlying framework for the correct notion of truth and provability. In all of the |

Posted: 21 Days 2 Hours ago by: Aleksy Grabowski Wow, I went offline for a weekend, because we had such a nice weather, and this thread exploded to enormous size 😲. I didn't read the whole thread it's just too big. On 5/1/22 13:00, olcott wrote: I don't want to undermine your know |

Posted: 21 Days 3 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer this makes me realize that I've been catfish for 15 years I've been catfish by you I'm so embarrassed but normally the way I handle this I say well maybe the person is a fake but she was interesting to talk to so that's my criterion I don |

Posted: 21 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon I will acknowledge that you have proven yourself to be the lying bastard. YOU have REPEADTEDLY trimmed out important parts of the conversation either to INTENTIONALLY be deceptive, or because you are so incompetent at this material tha |

Posted: 21 Days 10 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak There is no quote where Gödel claims G is "sufficiently equivalent" to the Liars Paradox. (And "sufficiently equivalent" for what, exactly? Is a five dollar bill "sufficiently equivalent" to 20 quarters? It's a meaningless question w |

Posted: 21 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott He is focusing on the dishonest dodge of the strawman error by making sure to ignore that in another quote Gödel said that Gödel's G is sufficiently equivalent to the Liar Paradox on the basis that the Liar Paradox is an epistemologi |

Posted: 21 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You mean like when he said (and you snipped): Maybe you should check your OWN facts. He is CLEARLY not saying that the Liar Paradox can't be used for this sort of proof, because he talks about its form being used. What he is denying, |

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak I didn't so much deny that as I did claim it was vacuous and irrelevant. Gödel draws a parallel between his proof and The Liar. He also notes that other antinomies could be used to construct similar proofs. That would seem to mean t |

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott If you look at the actual facts you will see that he continued to deny that kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. If you make sure to knowingly contradi |

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, he says that the use of the Liar Paradox in the form that Godel does doesn't make the Godel Sentence a non-truth holder. The fact that you have mis-interpreted him that many times, and even snipped out his explanations shows you ig |

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott If you look at the full context of many messages you will see that he kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. Only when I made denying this look utterly r |

Posted: 21 Days 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was: So, clearly the requested proof was that about USING the epistemolgocal antinomy and it being just like one so not a Truth Bearer. Note, the comment that you claimed you bac |

Posted: 21 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: |

Posted: 21 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott I backed him into a corner and forced him to stop lying: On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: Anyone that abuses me gets a metaphorical uppercut to the jaw. |

Posted: 21 Days 14 Hours ago by: olcott See that I backed you into a corner to force you to quit lying. |

Posted: 21 Days 15 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Equivalence with respect to *what*? If two things are equivalent but not identical, it means they are equivalent with respect to some things but not equivalent with respect to others. The entire point of my posts has been to clarify s |

Posted: 21 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott Not quite. X = is an epistemological antinomy Of course not nitwit, you know that I mean equivalence. What kind of stupid fool would believe that I mean that G and LP are one and the same thing? I know, I know, a jackass that wants to |

Posted: 21 Days 15 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Presumably he will point to the (nonexistent) footnote where Gödel claims that The Liar and G are "sufficiently equivalent" rather than the (actual) footnote where Gödel rather explicitly denies this. André |

Posted: 21 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon As Andre pointed out, when you look at the statement to see what the terms are, you just agreed with him and proved that YOU are the Liar. |

Posted: 21 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You can PROVE it? Note, that means you need to start with the ACTUAL G that Godel used, not some "simplified" version. So you better know what all that means. |

Posted: 21 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof The Liar Paradox i |

Posted: 21 Days 15 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above. Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above: X would be 'Is an Antinomy' Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used to form an undecida |

Posted: 21 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof The Liar Paradox i |

Posted: 21 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott sufficiently equivalent |

Posted: 21 Days 16 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I think we're done. I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you (a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child. (b) suffering from foetal alcohol sy |

Posted: 21 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, there is a difference between being used for and being just like. |

Posted: 21 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying bastard. |

Posted: 21 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying bastard. |

Posted: 21 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Right, But G isn't, because it ISN'T the Liar's Paradox, but has a structure based on the Liar's Paradox but transformed. Your failure to understand this difference says you are unqualified to talk about the meaning of words, or basic |

Posted: 21 Days 17 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the substance of my post. Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G. He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one can con |

Posted: 21 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott You freaking dishonest bastard 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy |

Posted: 21 Days 18 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So something based on another thing is that other thing? Does that mean your automobile is just a pile of gasoline? That IS the argument you are making boiled down to simple terms. |

Posted: 21 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof, nitwit. I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persist |

Posted: 21 Days 19 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below? That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The Liar, but G is *very* different from |

Posted: 21 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to notice that I said it once? 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar |

Posted: 21 Days 19 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Well, for Godel's G, since it is just that a statement that some statement x is provable, and the provability of a statement is ALWAYS a Truth Bearer, as you can't prove a non-sense sentence, so provable(x) would be false is x is not a |

Posted: 21 Days 19 Hours ago by: olcott My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3). The category error would be that none of them is in th |

Posted: 21 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott I do think that your idea of "category error" is a brilliant new insight into pathological self-reference problems such as: (1) The Halting Problem proofs (2) Gödel's 1930 Incompleteness (3) The 1936 Undefinability theorem It very succ |

Posted: 21 Days 20 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Maybe it just says that PROLOG can't express the statement without an infinite cycle due to the limitiations in Prologs logic system? Better logic systems can handle and work with statements that are self-referential or recursive. You |

Posted: 21 Days 20 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Incorrect, conventional logic understand that some statements are not truth bearers. Now, a lot of rules are pre-conditioned on the assumption that their inputs ARE truth bearers, so you need to be careful in just applying rules to sta |

Posted: 21 Days 21 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You think? depends on what you know about the definition of foo. Perhaps you can't do anything with the infinitely expanded version, since you can't actually express it, but the self-referential version might be able to be analyzed. Y |

Posted: 21 Days 21 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett T24gNS8xLzIwMjIgNjoxOSBBTSwgTXIgRmxpYmJsZSB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gU2F0LCAzMCBB cHIgMjAyMiAyMzoyNDowNSAtMDYwMA0KPiBKZWZmIEJhcm5ldHQgPGpiYkBub3RhdHQuY29t PiB3cm90ZToNCj4gDQo+PiBPbiA0LzMwLzIwMjIgOToxNSBQTSwgb2xjb3R0IHdyb3RlOg0K Pj4+IE9uIDQvMzAvMjAyM |

Posted: 21 Days 21 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak Yes. There is a close *relationship* between his G and The Liar. That does *not* mean that G *is* The Liar. It is not. But you refuse to read Gödel's actual math to see the *very* significant differences between the two. Similarly o |

Posted: 21 Days 21 Hours ago by: Richard Damon But if you don't know N, you don't know when to terminate the expansion. If all you know is that N is a positive integer, then you don't know when to stop. That is the issue, Fact of N isn't just defined for know values of N, but you |

Posted: 21 Days 21 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, not "incorrect", just "can't be handled by Prolog". If foo is my fact() function, it is definitely "defined". |

Posted: 21 Days 21 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Depends on the definition of foo. If foo is the function "fact" I have presented, then the unwinding becomes exactly that to a too dumb naive expansion. Thus "never" is incorrect. Because Prolog is too limited to be able to fully h |

Posted: 21 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott It says that Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof thus even English epistemological antinomies such as the Liar antinomy can be used. Gödel says: "There is also a close relationship w |

Posted: 21 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott That it not what Gödel says: 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof G ↔ ¬Provable(F, G) is an epistemological antinomy therefore it is necessarily sufficient. Likewise with this |

Posted: 21 Days 22 Hours ago by: polcott This type is never fine: // Adapted from Clocksin & Mellish foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(...)))))))))))) Because Gödel says 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof G |

Posted: 22 Days 1 Hour ago by: polcott Brilliantly well put. |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble Are you mental? That definition isn't infinitely recursive as it terminates when N equals 1 given a set of constraints on N (positive integer greater or equal to 1). /Flibble |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott The expression inherently has an infinite cycle, making it erroneous. Does not have an infinite cycle. It always begins with a finite integer that specifies the finite number of cycles. An infinite cycle is the same thing as an infin |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So, factorials don't nave valid logical meaning? That is the logical conclusion of your statement since fact does the same expansion. Shows the capability of your logic system. "encoded in Prolog", nope, becuase G uses logic that is b |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott Semantically incorrect expressions of language are totally invisible to conventional logic because conventional logic incorrectly assumes that every expression is true or false. Prolog can detect expressions that are neither true nor f |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon You misunderstand what it says. It says that it can't figure how to express the statement without a cycle. That is different then taking infinite memory. It only possibly implies infinite memory in a naive expansion, which isn't the on |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott It correctly says that this is what the expression means: foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(...)))))))))))) Which means that it does not have a valid logical meaning. This says that G is logically equivalent to its own unp |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon "Better" is as subjective word unless you define an objective criteria. The fact that Prolog doesn't have the expresiability to actually write the Godel sentence, means it can't actually be used to disprove it. Misusing notations to sh |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Which just shows PROLOG can't handle that sort of expression, not that it logically doens't have a meaning. So all Clocksin & Melish is saying is that such an expression fails in PROLOG, not that it doesn't have a valid logical meanin |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott That is counter-factual. unify_with_occurs_check determines that it would require infinite memory and then aborts its evaluation. foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(...)))))))))))) "..." indicates infinite depth, thus infin |

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott That is the dishonest dodge of the strawman error. The particular expression at hand is inherently incorrect and thus any system that proves it is a broken system. foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(...)))))))))))) The ". |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott Prolog has a better model in that it can detect semantic paradoxes. LP ↔ ¬True(LP) is correctly assessed as neither true nor false. |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer but that's okay norside guy old guy you treat your customers like shit they just quit you and you go out of business it's kind a like that scene in clockwork Orange you know where Alex has been given a psychological test in the psychologic |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott The question is not whether some infinite structures have meaning that is the dishonest dodge of the strawman error. The question is whether on not the expression at hand has meaning or is simply semantically incoherent. I just posted |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott *You can and Prolog can detect and reject it* BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254) Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to satisfy goals |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Nope, a tree that one branch points into itself higher up represents a tree with infinite depth, but only needs a finite amount of memory. Building such a structure may require the ability to forward declare something or reference some |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon As Jeff pointed out, your claim is shown false, that some statements with infinite expansions can be worked with by some automatic solvers. This just proves that you don't really understand the effects of "recursion" and "self-referenc |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon So you are sort of answering your own question. The model of logic that Prolog handles isn't quite the same as "conventional" logic, in part due to the way it (doesn't) define Logical Negation. This seems to fit into your standard misu |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott That is incorrect. any structure that is infinitely deep would take all of the memory that is available yet specifies an infinite amount of memory. This says that G is logically equivalent to its own unprovability in F G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott Is says that it is. It says that "not" is synonymous with \+. |

Posted: 22 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott negation, not, \+ The concept of logical negation in Prolog is problematical, in the sense that the only method that Prolog can use to tell if a proposition is false is to try to prove it (from the facts and rules that it has been told |

Posted: 22 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer see you, the way it's done nowadays if is if anyone gives you the least little bit of trouble you just wash them out of your life forever you never see them again and it's easy to get a replacement there's 7 1/2 billion of them out there a |

Posted: 22 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer you take a bus out to Lakewood Drive and the first thing you know you're out of the city Indian lake is it seeing you should make with your little one did you know that people have a potential infinity of such phrases in their head what th |

Posted: 22 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer this is my worst nightmare I continually have people I've talked to for 1520 3060 years leave me for no reason in fact I tell them she don't line over there you go standing there's a sign at the front of the line it says people who have le |

Posted: 22 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer |

Posted: 22 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer |

Posted: 22 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer So those love letters you sent you didn't really mean them or else you would've started communicating with me again? |

Posted: 22 Days 9 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett T24gNC8zMC8yMDIyIDk6MTUgUE0sIG9sY290dCB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gNC8zMC8yMDIyIDEw OjExIFBNLCBSaWNoYXJkIERhbW9uIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gT24gNC8zMC8yMiAxMDo1NiBQTSwg b2xjb3R0IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+IE9uIDQvMzAvMjAyMiA5OjM4IFBNLCBSaWNoYXJkIERhbW9u IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+PiBPb |

Posted: 22 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott What about this one? LP ↔ ¬True(LP) // Tarski uses something like this https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf or this one? G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G) |

Posted: 22 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott Not in this case, it is very obvious that no theorem prover can possibly prove any infinite expression. It is the same thing as a program that is stuck in an infinite loop. |

Posted: 22 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon And it appears that you don't understand it, because you still make category errors when trying to talk about it. Right. but some infinite structures might actually have meaning. The fact that Prolog uses certain limited method to fig |

Posted: 22 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott In this case it does. I have spent thousands of hours on the semantic error of infinitely recursive definition and written a dozen papers on it. Glancing at one of two of the words of Clocksin & Mellish does not count as reading it. BE |

Posted: 22 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon I did. You just don't seem to understand what I am saying because it is above your head. Prolog is NOT the defining authority for what is a valid logical statement, but a system of programming to handle a subset of those statements (a |

Posted: 22 Days 12 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I guess this is it you're not saying anything I'm afraid my worst fear has come true that you're not really who you said you were at this point I'm figuring that you are not some lady in great Britain but instead you're an Iranian circus |

Posted: 22 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott It is really dumb that you continue to take wild guesses again the verified facts. Please read the Clocksin & Mellish (on page 3 of my paper) text and eliminate your ignorance. |

Posted: 22 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon No, that IS what they say, that this sort of recursion fails the test of Unification, not that it is has no possible logical meaning. Prolog represents a somewhat basic form of logic, useful for many cases, but not encompassing all pos |

Posted: 22 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott I asked the question incorrectly, what I really needed to know is whether or not the Prolog correctly encodes this logic sentence: LP := ~True(LP) x := y means x is defined to be another name for y https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ |

Posted: 22 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott That is not what Clocksin & Mellish says. They say it is an erroneous "infinite term" meaning that it specifies infinitely nested definition like this: LP := ~True(LP) specifies: ~True(~True(~True(L~True(L~True(...)) The ellipses "..." |

Posted: 22 Days 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon Since it isn't giving you a "syntax error", it is probably correct Prolog. Not sure if your interpretation of the results is correct. All that false means is that the statement LP = not(true(LP)) is recursive and that Prolog can't ac |

Posted: 22 Days 17 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I've noticed that when two people quit riding to each other it usually that's it it never starts up again. |

Posted: 22 Days 18 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer If you ever realize that there's no way I could've learned your children's identity and if you'd like to start corresponding again just let me know |

Posted: 22 Days 21 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer The thing is once a relationship has been destroyed there's no getting it back a good analogy is is that the conversational partner that once out of the relationship throws the relationship away and the only way that conversational partne |

Posted: 23 Days 6 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer so sad so sad I just wish we could reconcile I just wish that you could realize that I wasn't trying to learn the identity of your children in order to sell them into white slavery they're in Saudi Arabia but I was just trying to after 15 |

Posted: 23 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_ |

Posted: 23 Days 10 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Isn't it ironic that you say something do your conversational partner which is absolutely inconsequential never needed to be said and then it gets misinterpreted by your conversational partner and it destroys the relationship , a tiny |

Posted: 23 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott It resolves the Liar Paradox to semantically malformed: ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4) https://www.researchgate.net/publi |

Posted: 23 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott DIRECT QUOTE FROM page 40/43 OF Gödel's PAPER The analogy between this result and Richard’s antinomy leaps to the eye; there is also a close relationship with the “liar” antinomy,^14 since the undecidable proposition [R(q); q] st |

Posted: 23 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott The Liar Paradox and Gödel's G are examples of infinitely recursive definition. LP := ~True(LP) G := ~Provable(G) This is totally obvious when they are encoded in Prolog. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_dete |

Posted: 23 Days 20 Hours ago by: olcott You are not using the conventional computer science terminology exactly correctly, yet the gist of what you are saying is exactly correct: category error. The exact same issue arises with Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness theorem and the 1 |

Posted: 23 Days 20 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer i'm so sorry about this i Should've watched what I said better the damage is done when one relationship partner irritates the other relationship partner and that partner heads for the hills there's almost nothing that can be done about it |

Posted: 24 Days 2 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer it's so hopeless when two people have a relationship and they dissociate you might as well just go onto the next person because those two people will never get back together the analogy I like to use is that of a wine glass if you drop it |

Posted: 24 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Chanel after 15 years of being unsure who's really at the end of the other end of the communications link now I can be sure : it will be nobody You're nobody call to Day you nobody called today you're nobody called today she hung up when |

Posted: 24 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer It's very hard to create a relationship over the Internet because you never know when the person you're dealing with is a complete fake if you deal only with the girl next door you can be sure that she's not a fake |

Posted: 24 Days 8 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Relationships are like mathematical trap door functions very easy to destroy very hard to create |

Posted: 24 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott You have to think it ALL THE WAY THROUGH. The above definition simply assumes that the behavior of the correctly simulated TM description will have the same behavior as the direct execution of the underlying machine. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢ |

Posted: 24 Days 10 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer |

Posted: 24 Days 16 Hours ago by: olcott There is no possible way for a computable function to not be a pure function of its arguments because this is a defined to be the meaning of the term: "computable function". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function When functi |

Posted: 24 Days 17 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer what we can do is just start over again I'll pretend that I never sent any questions to you about your children and we can just press on from there I know that'll work the only trouble is no one in the history of humanity stretching back |

Posted: 24 Days 23 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer i'm really sorry about this see if we only live next to each other we could've got some type of relationship going because I wouldn't know you're a real person but over the Internet anybody can fake anything it's really sickening I mean r |

Posted: 24 Days 23 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer |

Posted: 25 Days 4 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Way back when I suggested that you come over here and we actually meet in person and you kept saying that someone stole your passport and you kept saying that for like 15 years but it seems like that you could've gotten another passport i |

Posted: 25 Days 5 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer how would you like to start communicating by email now you had gone to hand written letters a few years back but gosh that's $1.20 a message and it takes so long see if we had been communicating by email we still be together that's becaus |

Posted: 25 Days 14 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer If only I hadn't asked about your children ; we'd all be shitting in tall cotton right about now. |

Posted: 26 Days 4 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer OK. I'll come clean I WAS trying to steal their identities but you were too smart for me . so let me ask you : do you want your letters back? |

Posted: 26 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer you told me all about your ex-husband. I thought maybe you would share about the rest of your family . I ask you about your children , questions which couldn't possibly compromise their identity .then I go into my patented "send her a 10 |

Posted: 27 Days 1 Hour ago by: Don Stockbauer By the human mind |

Posted: 27 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott So when Ĥ copies its input this copied input goes no where? You still have not cleared up your huge gaff about the location of the tape of machines that are simulated by a UTM. When a UTM simulates the TM description of another |

Posted: 28 Days 2 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer if someone refuses to communicate with you there's nothing you can do just move on make new friends have pleasant memories of what passed between the two of you over the years your conversational opponent has trillions of other people the |

Posted: 28 Days 9 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer But since you're so extremely concerned about not revealing the identity of your grown children it's best not to say anything about them if a stranger asks. |

Posted: 28 Days 9 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer You can't compromise someone's identity by merely asking their gender or age but it's too late now wish you the best |

Posted: 29 Days 1 Hour ago by: Don Stockbauer do you all we can do in life is learn from our mistakes so like Bill Clinton I suppose I'll just have to do a move on I'm not real sure to do with all your letters on file I guess I'll just go ahead and keep them for a while anyway to see |

Posted: 29 Days 9 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I so wish I had never asked that question it was pure poison also right after that question I asked about the person in this country who shares your name and writes saucy novels probably a combination of asking about that and then asking |

Posted: 29 Days 12 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I feel so bad about this and I just been quiet about the children thing we might've had a chance to continue onward but with all these branded stupid postings I made it here concerning the whole thing it's just they have just destroyed ev |

Posted: 29 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott The key fact (that is perpetually over your head) is that the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations making it necessarily correct for H to reject this input. It is your failure to acknowledge this key fact |

Posted: 29 Days 16 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer Please please write again . I promise you I won't ask anything about your family anymore in fact I won't ask anything about anything anymore I'll mail you a blank sheet of paper |

Posted: 29 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott You might make a wild guess like this if you make sure to hardly pay attention. When you actually pay close attention and carefully study my paper it is very easy to see that H sees the same infinitely repeating pattern that we see, th |

Posted: 29 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott Yet when you carefully examine my paper: Anyone that is an expert in the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C translates into x86 and what an x86 processor emulator is can easily verify that the correctly |

Posted: 29 Days 22 Hours ago by: Don Stockbauer I've come up with Stockbauer's fourth law and it reads: "whenever Stockbauer makes a relationship he'll soon destroy it" Or maybe not so much soon as eventually |

Posted: 29 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott None-the-less H(P,P) does correctly compute the mapping from its inputs to its own reject state therefore H(P,P) correctly decides the halt status of the halting problem's "impossible" input. Anyone that is an expert in the C programmi |

Posted: 29 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott All of my reviewers expect H(P,P) to compute the halt status of P(P), yet the behavior specified by the input to H(P,P) is not the same as the behavior specified by P(P). Anyone that is an expert in the C programming language, the x86 p |

**463** recent articles found.

clearneti2ptor