On 3/1/24 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>
>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>> you need a mirror.
>>
>
> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
> understand what I am saying.
>
> My process is defined below:
> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>   blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>
>   Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>   experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>   and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>   developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>   genius in all domains.
>
>   The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>   without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>   must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>   to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>   characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>   Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>   ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>   Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>   to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>   direction.
>   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>
> *Another key aspect of my process*
> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles") is a
> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to ground
> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>
> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>
> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>
>

In other words, you reject the concept of Formal Logic, and thus are
working outside of it, so NOTHING in formal logic is impacted by your
words, and you are just shown to be a pathological liar, and and idiot,
for claiming it does.

IF you want a new logic system, build it, but admit you are using a nw
ssytem and stop claiming you work applies to it.

That is just being a LIAR.

On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>
>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>> you need a mirror.
>>
>
> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
> understand what I am saying.
>
> My process is defined below:
> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>   blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>
>   Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>   experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>   and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>   developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>   genius in all domains.
>
>   The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>   without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>   must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>   to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>   characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>   Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>   ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>   Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>   to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>   direction.
>   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>
> *Another key aspect of my process*
> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles") is a
> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to ground
> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>
> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>
> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>

The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
"yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
to have no correct yes/no answer."

I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/1/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>
>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>> you need a mirror.
>>>
>>
>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>> understand what I am saying.
>>
>> My process is defined below:
>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>    blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>
>>    Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>    experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>    and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>    developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>    genius in all domains.
>>
>>    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>    without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>    must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>    to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>    characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>    Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>    to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>    direction.
>>    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>
>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles") is a
>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to ground
>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>
>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>
>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>
>
> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
>  to have no correct yes/no answer."
>
> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.
>

So, Halting isn't an undecidable decision problem, as when it was
defined, it was hoped that it was possible, and thus wasn't
"intentionally defined" to have no correct answer.

The fact that we can find a question template that no decider can get
its question right, makes it actually undecidable, but not PO-undecidable.

What do you call the problem that we can't build a decider for but
wasn't intentionaly built that way?

On 3/1/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/1/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>>
>>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>>> you need a mirror.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>>> understand what I am saying.
>>>
>>> My process is defined below:
>>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>    blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>>
>>>    Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>>    experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>>    and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>>    developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>    genius in all domains.
>>>
>>>    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>    without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>>    must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>>    to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>>    characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>>    Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>>    to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>>    direction.
>>>    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>>
>>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles") is a
>>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to ground
>>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>>
>>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>
>>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>>
>>
>> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
>> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
>>   to have no correct yes/no answer."
>>
>> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
>> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.
>>
>
> So, Halting isn't an undecidable decision problem, as when it was
> defined, it was hoped that it was possible, and thus wasn't
> "intentionally defined" to have no correct answer.
>
> The fact that we can find a question template that no decider can get
> its question right, makes it actually undecidable, but not PO-undecidable.
>
> What do you call the problem that we can't build a decider for but
> wasn't intentionaly built that way?

These two questions are "undecidable" for the same
reason (they are both incorrect):
(a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
(b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?

....14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Because decision problem decidability allows epistemological antinomy
inputs (a) is construed as a limit to computation.

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision
problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a yes–no
question of the input values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/1/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/1/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>>>
>>>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>>>> you need a mirror.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>>>> understand what I am saying.
>>>>
>>>> My process is defined below:
>>>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>    blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>>>
>>>>    Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>>>    experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>>>    and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>>>    developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>    genius in all domains.
>>>>
>>>>    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>    without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>>>    must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>>>    to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>>>    characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>>>    Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>>    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>>>    to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>>>    direction.
>>>>    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>>>
>>>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>>>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles") is a
>>>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>>>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to ground
>>>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>>>
>>>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>>>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>
>>>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>>>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>>>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>>>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>>>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>>>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
>>> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
>>>   to have no correct yes/no answer."
>>>
>>> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
>>> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.
>>>
>>
>> So, Halting isn't an undecidable decision problem, as when it was
>> defined, it was hoped that it was possible, and thus wasn't
>> "intentionally defined" to have no correct answer.
>>
>> The fact that we can find a question template that no decider can get
>> its question right, makes it actually undecidable, but not
>> PO-undecidable.
>>
>> What do you call the problem that we can't build a decider for but
>> wasn't intentionaly built that way?
>
> These two questions are "undecidable" for the same
> reason (they are both incorrect):
> (a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
> (b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?
>

Nope. Explained before, so you are just admitting to LYING.

The first can have syntactically yes/no answers, they are just both
incorrect.

The second doesn't allow yes/no answers by syntax, so those answer are
categorically wrong

This just shows your utter stupidity.

> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
> Because decision problem decidability allows epistemological antinomy
> inputs (a) is construed as a limit to computation.

Just proving your stupidity. You don't understand what he is saying, and
have effectively admitted it.

>
> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision
> problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a yes–no
> question of the input values.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>

Right.

And the question actually posed did.

On 3/1/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/1/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/1/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>>>>> you need a mirror.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>>>>> understand what I am saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> My process is defined below:
>>>>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>    blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>>>>
>>>>>    Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>>>>    experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>>>>    and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>>>>    developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>    genius in all domains.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>    without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>>>>    must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>>>>    to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>>>>    characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>>>>    Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>>>    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>>>>    to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>>>>    direction.
>>>>>    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>>>>
>>>>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>>>>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles")
>>>>> is a
>>>>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>>>>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to
>>>>> ground
>>>>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>>>>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>>>>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>>>>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>>>>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>>>>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>>>>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
>>>> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
>>>>   to have no correct yes/no answer."
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
>>>> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, Halting isn't an undecidable decision problem, as when it was
>>> defined, it was hoped that it was possible, and thus wasn't
>>> "intentionally defined" to have no correct answer.
>>>
>>> The fact that we can find a question template that no decider can get
>>> its question right, makes it actually undecidable, but not
>>> PO-undecidable.
>>>
>>> What do you call the problem that we can't build a decider for but
>>> wasn't intentionaly built that way?
>>
>> These two questions are "undecidable" for the same
>> reason (they are both incorrect):
>> (a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>> (b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?
>>
>
> Nope. Explained before, so you are just admitting to LYING.
>
> The first can have syntactically yes/no answers, they are just both
> incorrect.
>
> The second doesn't allow yes/no answers by syntax, so those answer are
> categorically wrong
>
> This just shows your utter stupidity.
>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>> Because decision problem decidability allows epistemological antinomy
>> inputs (a) is construed as a limit to computation.
>
> Just proving your stupidity. You don't understand what he is saying, and
> have effectively admitted it.
>
>>
>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a
>> yes–no question of the input values.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>>
>
> Right.
>
> And the question actually posed did.

Yet you admit that both questions are wrong.
That is better than most PhD philosophers specializing
in the notion of truth.

The only reason that I know better than them is that
I have focused on epistemological antinomies for many
thousands of hours since 2004.

That is the anchor of all of my work on all of these
things since 2004.

Do you understand that a decision problem based on (b)
is incorrect?

Do you understand that a decision problem based on (a)
is also incorrect and that it is incorrect is decidable
when its semantics is translated into syntax?

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2024-03-01 17:59:18 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>
>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>> you need a mirror.
>
> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
> understand what I am saying.
>
> My process is defined below:
> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
> blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>
> Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
> experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
> and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
> developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
> genius in all domains.
>
> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
> without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
> must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
> to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
> characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
> Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
> to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
> direction.
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/

That is the way Nature has designed us. The process is slow but can
find solutions that are far from obvious.

Right now your work seems to be in phase were a long backtracking is
required. Of course you may need a long time and a lot of work
before you can see that you need to backtrack more than to where you
are now.

--
Mikko

On 2024-03-01 20:00:38 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>
>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>> you need a mirror.
>>>
>>
>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>> understand what I am saying.
>>
>> My process is defined below:
>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>   blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>
>>   Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>   experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>   and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>   developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>   genius in all domains.
>>
>>   The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>   without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>   must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>   to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>   characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>   Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>   ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>   Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>   to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>   direction.
>>   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>
>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles") is a
>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to ground
>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>
>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>
>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>
>
> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
> to have no correct yes/no answer."
>
> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.

First try to work out whether it applies to decision problems
that have been unintentionally defined to have no correct
yes/no answer.

--
Mikko

On 3/1/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/1/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>>>>>> you need a mirror.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>>>>>> understand what I am saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My process is defined below:
>>>>>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>    blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>>>>>    experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>>>>>    and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>>>>>    developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>    genius in all domains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>>    without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>>>>>    must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>>>>>    to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>>>>>    characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>>>>>    Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>>>>    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>>>>>    to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>>>>>    direction.
>>>>>>    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>>>>>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles")
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>>>>>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to
>>>>>> ground
>>>>>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>>>>>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>>>>>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>>>>>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>>>>>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>>>>>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>>>>>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
>>>>> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
>>>>>   to have no correct yes/no answer."
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
>>>>> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, Halting isn't an undecidable decision problem, as when it was
>>>> defined, it was hoped that it was possible, and thus wasn't
>>>> "intentionally defined" to have no correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that we can find a question template that no decider can
>>>> get its question right, makes it actually undecidable, but not
>>>> PO-undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> What do you call the problem that we can't build a decider for but
>>>> wasn't intentionaly built that way?
>>>
>>> These two questions are "undecidable" for the same
>>> reason (they are both incorrect):
>>> (a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>>> (b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Explained before, so you are just admitting to LYING.
>>
>> The first can have syntactically yes/no answers, they are just both
>> incorrect.
>>
>> The second doesn't allow yes/no answers by syntax, so those answer are
>> categorically wrong
>>
>> This just shows your utter stupidity.
>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>
>>> Because decision problem decidability allows epistemological antinomy
>>> inputs (a) is construed as a limit to computation.
>>
>> Just proving your stupidity. You don't understand what he is saying,
>> and have effectively admitted it.
>>
>>>
>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a
>>> yes–no question of the input values.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> And the question actually posed did.
>
> Yet you admit that both questions are wrong.
> That is better than most PhD philosophers specializing
> in the notion of truth.

Nope, the QUESTION ACTUALLY ASKED are correct.

Your transformation of the questions are wrong, because4 you

>
> The only reason that I know better than them is that
> I have focused on epistemological antinomies for many
> thousands of hours since 2004.

And made yourself an ignorant ppathological lying idiot by doing so.

>
> That is the anchor of all of my work on all of these
> things since 2004.
>
> Do you understand that a decision problem based on (b)
> is incorrect?

Of course, since that question can't be answered syntactically with yes
or no.

>
> Do you understand that a decpision problem based on (a)
> is also incorrect and that it is incorrect is decidable
> when its semantics is translated into syntax?
>

You CAN'T "transform" semantics into syntax.

That might be part of your problem.

On 3/2/2024 7:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/1/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/1/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>>>>>>> you need a mirror.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>>>>>>> understand what I am saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My process is defined below:
>>>>>>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>    blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>>>>>>    experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>>>>>>    and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>>>>>>    developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>    genius in all domains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>>>    without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>>>>>>    must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>>>>>>    to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>>>>>>    characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>>>>>>    Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>>>>>    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>>>>>>    to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>>>>>>    direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>>>>>>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first
>>>>>>> principles") is a
>>>>>>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>>>>>>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to
>>>>>>> ground
>>>>>>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>>>>>>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>>>>>>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>>>>>>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>>>>>>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>>>>>>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>>>>>>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
>>>>>> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
>>>>>>   to have no correct yes/no answer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
>>>>>> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Halting isn't an undecidable decision problem, as when it was
>>>>> defined, it was hoped that it was possible, and thus wasn't
>>>>> "intentionally defined" to have no correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that we can find a question template that no decider can
>>>>> get its question right, makes it actually undecidable, but not
>>>>> PO-undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you call the problem that we can't build a decider for but
>>>>> wasn't intentionaly built that way?
>>>>
>>>> These two questions are "undecidable" for the same
>>>> reason (they are both incorrect):
>>>> (a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>>>> (b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Explained before, so you are just admitting to LYING.
>>>
>>> The first can have syntactically yes/no answers, they are just both
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> The second doesn't allow yes/no answers by syntax, so those answer
>>> are categorically wrong
>>>
>>> This just shows your utter stupidity.
>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>> Because decision problem decidability allows epistemological antinomy
>>>> inputs (a) is construed as a limit to computation.
>>>
>>> Just proving your stupidity. You don't understand what he is saying,
>>> and have effectively admitted it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>>>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a
>>>> yes–no question of the input values.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> And the question actually posed did.
>>
>> Yet you admit that both questions are wrong.
>> That is better than most PhD philosophers specializing
>> in the notion of truth.
>
> Nope, the QUESTION ACTUALLY ASKED are correct.

On 3/1/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/1/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:>> These two questions are
"undecidable" for the same
>> reason (they are both incorrect):
>> (a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>> (b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?
>>
> The first can have syntactically yes/no answers, they are just both
> incorrect.
>

Most PhD philosophers specializing in the notion of truth
do not understand that (a) has no correct yes/no answer.

> The second doesn't allow yes/no answers by syntax, so those answer are
> categorically wrong

When an incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
having no correct yes/no answer then both (a) and (b) meet
this criterion measure.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/2/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2024 7:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/1/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
>>>>>>>>> you need a mirror.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
>>>>>>>> understand what I am saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My process is defined below:
>>>>>>>> *The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>>    blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
>>>>>>>>    experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
>>>>>>>>    and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
>>>>>>>>    developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>>    genius in all domains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>>>>    without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
>>>>>>>>    must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
>>>>>>>>    to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
>>>>>>>>    characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
>>>>>>>>    Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>>>>>>    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>>>>>>>    to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
>>>>>>>>    direction.
>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Another key aspect of my process*
>>>>>>>> "First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first
>>>>>>>> principles") is a
>>>>>>>> problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
>>>>>>>> problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to
>>>>>>>> ground
>>>>>>>> yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
>>>>>>>> has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
>>>>>>>> subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
>>>>>>>> terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
>>>>>>>> mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
>>>>>>>> of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
>>>>>>>> have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Olcott version of undecidable decision problem is:
>>>>>>> "yes/no questions that have been intentionally defined
>>>>>>>   to have no correct yes/no answer."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure if this applies to all undecidable decision
>>>>>>> problems or only those anchored in epistemological antinomies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Halting isn't an undecidable decision problem, as when it was
>>>>>> defined, it was hoped that it was possible, and thus wasn't
>>>>>> "intentionally defined" to have no correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that we can find a question template that no decider can
>>>>>> get its question right, makes it actually undecidable, but not
>>>>>> PO-undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you call the problem that we can't build a decider for but
>>>>>> wasn't intentionaly built that way?
>>>>>
>>>>> These two questions are "undecidable" for the same
>>>>> reason (they are both incorrect):
>>>>> (a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>>>>> (b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Explained before, so you are just admitting to LYING.
>>>>
>>>> The first can have syntactically yes/no answers, they are just both
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The second doesn't allow yes/no answers by syntax, so those answer
>>>> are categorically wrong
>>>>
>>>> This just shows your utter stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>
>>>>> Because decision problem decidability allows epistemological antinomy
>>>>> inputs (a) is construed as a limit to computation.
>>>>
>>>> Just proving your stupidity. You don't understand what he is saying,
>>>> and have effectively admitted it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>>>>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a
>>>>> yes–no question of the input values.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> And the question actually posed did.
>>>
>>> Yet you admit that both questions are wrong.
>>> That is better than most PhD philosophers specializing
>>> in the notion of truth.
>>
>> Nope, the QUESTION ACTUALLY ASKED are correct.
>
> On 3/1/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 3/1/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:>> These two questions are
> "undecidable" for the same
> >> reason (they are both incorrect):
> >> (a) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
> >> (b) Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ?
> >>
> > The first can have syntactically yes/no answers, they are just both
> > incorrect.
> >
>
> Most PhD philosophers specializing in the notion of truth
> do not understand that (a) has no correct yes/no answer.

Nope, maybe you seem to be atttracted to people with limited
understanding, or maybe you just have limited understand of what they
are saying.

Your statment is just FALSE, and shows you to be an ignorant
pathological lying idiot.

>
> > The second doesn't allow yes/no answers by syntax, so those answer are
> > categorically wrong
>
> When an incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
> having no correct yes/no answer then both (a) and (b) meet
> this criterion measure.
>

Yes, neither is a proper question, but for different reasons.

Note, the Halting Question HAS a correct answer for every input, so
isn't one of them.

Perhaps your Strawman doesn't but it is just a Strawman.

Your other cases (Tarski and Godel) you are just not understanding what
they are saying. You prove your stupidity here by your inability to show
where they start with the assumption you claim.