On 2/23/2022 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages with this in the header that will get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aioe.org NNTP server and not to any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't remember who) already pointed out this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error to you when you were claiming the poster in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question was from Germany. That's like assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that someone must be from Mountain View CA since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reverse-engineer complicated problems and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not correspond to conventional wisdom because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have corrected the errors in the philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have is gibberish double talk anchored in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with themselves then this inconsistency cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored and must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not it is aborted because halting is required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the final state because you give up when your machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because
>>>>>>>>>> it is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer,
>>>>>>>>> and it FAILED.
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite
>>>>>> loop you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing
>>>>>> anything close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone
>>>>> might beleive you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and
>>>>> abort its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the
>>>>> loop so it doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> That is freaking nuts.
>>>>
>>>> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
>>>> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
>>>> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>>>
>>> H only partially simulates what the machine does.
>>
>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates its input until it proves that this input
>> cannot possibly reach its final state.
>>
>
> Which it can only do if it NEVER aborts, because if embedded_H (and thus
> H) goes to H.Qn then H^ also goes to H^.Qn and Halts.
>
> You keep forgetting this.

Cambridge's Sainsbury is Olcott right, that Putin needs "skin-in-the-game" with cruise missiles that can reach Moscow and Stalingrad.

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:03:50 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:
> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is gibberish
> double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not believe me.
>
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."

Cambridge's Sainsbury is Olcott right, that Putin needs "skin-in-the-game" with cruise missiles that can reach Moscow and Stalingrad.

2Olcott can John Coates,David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.

Re: Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning. And why do you encourage crank screwballs that repeat computer trash, Pete Olcott, spamming sci.math everyday?

> Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?
>
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> Spammers hit targets no one else can hit;
> Crackpots hit a target no one else cares to see.
>
>
>
> Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
> >
> > Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
> >
> > Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
> >
> > 3rd published book
> >
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> >
> > Length: 21 pages
> >
> > File Size: 1620 KB
> > Print Length: 21 pages
> > Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> >
> >
> > #8-2, 11th published book
> >
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> >
> > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> >
> > Length: 137 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date : March 14, 2019
> > Language : English
> > File size : 1307 KB
> > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > Screen Reader : Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > Print length : 137 pages
> > Lending : Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> >
> > 5th published book
> >
> > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science..
> > Preface:
> > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> >
> > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> >
> > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> >
> > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> >
> >
> > Length: 72 pages
> >
> > File Size: 773 KB
> > Print Length: 72 pages
> > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > 

> >
> >
> > #6-2, 27th published book
> >
> > Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> > Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
> >
> > Preface:
> > These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
> >
> > Equal+Not
> > T = T = T
> > T = ~F = T
> > F = ~T = T
> > F = F = T
> >
> > If--> then
> > T --> T = T
> > T --> F = F
> > F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
> > F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
> >
> > And
> > T & T = T
> > T & F = T
> > F & T = T
> > F & F = F
> >
> >
> > Or
> > T or T = F
> > T or F = T
> > F or T = T
> > F or F = F
> >
> > Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself.. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
> >
> > Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
> >
> > | | ~p
> > | |---
> > | | .
> > | | .
> > | | q
> > | | .
> > | | .
> > | | ~q
> > | p
> >
> > Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
> > Length: 86 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
> > • Publication date : March 23, 2019
> > • Language : English
> > • File size : 1178 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > • Print length : 86 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
> > •
> >
> >
> > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> >
> > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> >
> > Length: 1150 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > • Language: : English
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> >
> >
> > Cambridge professors insane about Logic turns students like Pete Olcott insane also.
> >
> > Cambridge Physics Dept
> >
> > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> >
> > Cambridge Math Dept
> >
> > Alan Baker
> > Bela Bollobas
> > Darwin Smith
> > John Coates
> > Timothy Gowers
> > Peter Johnstone
> > Imre Leader
> > Gabriel Paternain
> >
> > Can any-one at Cambridge start correcting the error filled Boole, Jevons, Russell, Whitehead, Godel, Wittgenstein, all failures of logic and logical reasoning, include Cantor and his tripe of undefined infinity, an infinity without a borderline between finite and infinite.
> >
> > Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
> Cambridge failures of physics who cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Harry Cliff, AP requires that Harry Cliff LHCb physicist to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics.
> > >
> > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > >
> > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > >
> > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV.
> > >
> > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom.
> > >
> > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > >
> > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > >
> > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > >
> > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > >
> > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > Length: 64 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > >
> > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > >
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-9, 161st published book
> > >
> > > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Preface:
> > > A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> > > It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> > > Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > y z
> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ x
> > >
> > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> > >
> > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > >
> > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > >
> > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > >
> > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > #3-1, 2nd published book
> > >
> > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > >
> > > Length: 1150 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > 

On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippage
>>>
>>>>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of
>>>>>> Wittgenstein I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a
>>>>>> 100% complete rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both
>>>>>> true and unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>>>>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once
>>>> one comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth
>>>> itself actually works.
>>>
>>> Which 'self-evident truth' is that?
>>
>> The actual knowledge ontology structure of the body of analytic
>> knowledge.
>>
>>> Note that you have a bad track record of assuming that things which
>>> are demonstrably false are 'self-evidently true'.
>>>
>>
>> I do use some terminology somewhat inconsistently with its
>> conventional meaning to overcome [strong linguistic determinism] that
>> makes the ideas that I need to express otherwise inexpressible.
>
> Maybe you need to MISUSE terms because the ideas you have are not just
> otherwise inexpressible but actually IMPOSSIBLE (or incompatible with
> the field you are trying to work in).
>

A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ such
that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).

<body of analytic truth>
It really is the case that an expression of language is only provable if
it can be derived by applying truth preserving operations to other
expressions of this same language.
</body of analytic truth>

It really is the case that an expression of language that is neither
provable nor refutable is not an element of the body of analytic truth.

>>
>> strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
>> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>
> And maybe you should look at the fact that you can't use the terms
> correctly means that your world view doesn't match the reality of the
> field.
>
>>
>>> Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
>>> talking about theories of arithmetic.
>>
>> The body of analytic truth encompasses all of mathematics and logic
>> and only excludes knowledge that can only be validated by input from
>> the sense organs.
>
> Then it needs to handle the fact that not all truths are provable.
>
> Otherwise, you need to PROVE your statement without assuming it.
>
> You still haven't answered the challenge of 3x+1, that one of the
> statements MUST be true, but neither might be provable.
>
>>
>>> The analytic/synthetic distinction is one made when discussing
>>> philosophy of language which deals with entirely different questions
>>> than arithmetic does.
>>>
>>
>> The notion of analytic truth is the foundation of all mathematics and
>> logic.
>
> No, the notion of analytic PROOF is the foundation of mathematics.
>
>>
>>> Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different
>>> meanings. You can't just assume that it is possible to import
>>> concepts from one field to another.
>>>
>>
>> If one field overloads the term "true" to include expressions of
>> language that are not true, then it errs.
>
> WRONG, if a field overloads the term True to exclude expressions that
> are clearly True, then it errs.
>
> You conflate True with Known.

If an expression of language in the body of analytic truth is true then
a proof of its truth exists even if this proof is currently unknown.

>>
>>>
>>>> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that
>>>> someone that they trust told them this statement is true. Most
>>>> people here "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust
>>>> that Gödel is correct.
>>>
>>> Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you have
>>> admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.
>>>
>>
>> If its conclusion is incorrect then all of the steps can be ignored.
>
> No, if a conclusion SEEMS incorrect, you need to see how to actually
> disprove it, or YOU need to worry that you logic system has gone
> inconsistent (which I strongly suspect it has).
>

If a proof derives that conclusion that some dogs are cats then we can
ignore the steps and reject the proof. If a proof claims that there are
specific instances of analytic truths that cannot possibly be proven
this is the same as the prior example.

> If you claim the 'right' answer is to just ignore a seeming valid proof
> that you find goes against your believes, then by the logic, we can just
> say that YOUR theory is wrong and we get to just ignore you and just say
> you are wrong.
>

Any proof that does not apply truth preserving operations to expressions
of language deriving necessary consequences is incorrect.

I am reformulating logic so that it becomes perfectly and consistently a
system of correct reasoning.

> Do you agree to that?
>
>>
>>>>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we
>>>>>>>> also say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus,
>>>>>>>> given 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which
>>>>>>>> is true...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's
>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by
>>>>>>>> applying truth preserving operations beginning with Curry's
>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem
>>>>>>> was not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>>>>>
>>>>> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the
>>>>> standard definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>>>>
>>>> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
>>>> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
>>>> contradict it.
>>>
>>> I have no reason to believe that you have any understanding of how
>>> truth 'really works'.
>>>
>>
>> Analytic truth is nothing more that a semantically connected set of
>> expressions of language each one known to be true.
>
> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of black
> cats doesn't contain all cats.
>

On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of black
>>> cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>
> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
> number of proof steps.
>

The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that are
connected together semantically.

> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this is
> what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things can be
> shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an uncountable number
> of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not handle, thus it can
> establish facts that are not Analytically provable.
>

This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there is
no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.

> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an inability
> to actually think about things that can become infinite. The problem
> with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to make a valid
> decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time, and thus it fails.
>

That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent and
knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:

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

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

I claim that the pattern is infinite loop.

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

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

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

I claim that the pattern is infinite loop.

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

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olcott arsewipe spammer of Cambridge's Sainsbury is Olcott right, that Putin needs "skin-in-the-game" with cruise missiles that can reach Moscow and Stalingrad.
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:03:50 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:
> > When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is gibberish
> > double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not believe me.
> >
> > --
> > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Cambridge's Sainsbury is Olcott right, that Putin needs "skin-in-the-game" with cruise missiles that can reach Moscow and Stalingrad.
>
> 2Olcott can John Coates,David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.
>
> Re: Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning. And why do you encourage crank screwballs that repeat computer trash, Pete Olcott, spamming sci.math everyday?
>
> > Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?
> >
> > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> > Spammers hit targets no one else can hit;
> > Crackpots hit a target no one else cares to see.
> >
> >
> >
> > Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
> > >
> > > Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
> > >
> > > Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
> > >
> > > 3rd published book
> > >
> > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> > >
> > > Length: 21 pages
> > >
> > > File Size: 1620 KB
> > > Print Length: 21 pages
> > > Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > > #8-2, 11th published book
> > >
> > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > > Preface:
> > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> > >
> > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> > >
> > > Length: 137 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> > > Publication date : March 14, 2019
> > > Language : English
> > > File size : 1307 KB
> > > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > Screen Reader : Supported
> > > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > Print length : 137 pages
> > > Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > >
> > > 5th published book
> > >
> > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > Preface:
> > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > >
> > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > >
> > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > >
> > >
> > > Length: 72 pages
> > >
> > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > > 

> > >
> > >
> > > #6-2, 27th published book
> > >
> > > Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > >
> > > Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
> > >
> > > Preface:
> > > These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
> > >
> > > Equal+Not
> > > T = T = T
> > > T = ~F = T
> > > F = ~T = T
> > > F = F = T
> > >
> > > If--> then
> > > T --> T = T
> > > T --> F = F
> > > F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
> > > F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
> > >
> > > And
> > > T & T = T
> > > T & F = T
> > > F & T = T
> > > F & F = F
> > >
> > >
> > > Or
> > > T or T = F
> > > T or F = T
> > > F or T = T
> > > F or F = F
> > >
> > > Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
> > >
> > > Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
> > >
> > > | | ~p
> > > | |---
> > > | | .
> > > | | .
> > > | | q
> > > | | .
> > > | | .
> > > | | ~q
> > > | p
> > >
> > > Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
> > > Length: 86 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
> > > • Publication date : March 23, 2019
> > > • Language : English
> > > • File size : 1178 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • Print length : 86 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
> > > •
> > >
> > >
> > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > >
> > > Length: 1150 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > >
> > >
> > > Cambridge professors insane about Logic turns students like Pete Olcott insane also.
> > >
> > > Cambridge Physics Dept
> > >
> > > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> > >
> > > Cambridge Math Dept
> > >
> > > Alan Baker
> > > Bela Bollobas
> > > Darwin Smith
> > > John Coates
> > > Timothy Gowers
> > > Peter Johnstone
> > > Imre Leader
> > > Gabriel Paternain
> > >
> > > Can any-one at Cambridge start correcting the error filled Boole, Jevons, Russell, Whitehead, Godel, Wittgenstein, all failures of logic and logical reasoning, include Cantor and his tripe of undefined infinity, an infinity without a borderline between finite and infinite.
> > >
> > > Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
> > Cambridge failures of physics who cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Harry Cliff, AP requires that Harry Cliff LHCb physicist to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics.
> > > >
> > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > >
> > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV.
> > > >
> > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom.
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > > >
> > > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > >
> > > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > > >
> > > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > > >
> > > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > > Length: 64 pages
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > >
> > > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > > >
> > > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-9, 161st published book
> > > >
> > > > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Preface:
> > > > A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> > > > It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> > > > Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > y z
> > > > | /
> > > > | /
> > > > |/______ x
> > > >
> > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies..
> > > >
> > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > > >
> > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > > >
> > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > > >
> > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > #3-1, 2nd published book
> > > >
> > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > > >
> > > > Length: 1150 pages
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > 

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

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

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

> Why not address the ACTUAL point of my post.

I just explained why.

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

The point is that I proved that your rebuttal is invalid on the basis of
the simpler example. When we apply your exact same reasoning to the
simpler example it becomes totally obvious that this reasoning is
incorrect.

> You seem oblivious that before you can even create the H^ to test H
> with, H has to be made into a fixed algorithm. with fully defined
> behavior. This means that the argument about what woud happen if H
> didn't abort at the point it does abort is irrelevent.

It is always the case that when-so-ever the input to a simulating halt
decider would cause the simulation to be infinite unless it was aborted
that the simulating halt decider correctly deciders that this input
never halts.

Because the above is true by logical necessity the strongest possible
rebuttal can only be of the form that you simply don't believe that it
is true.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Total economic sanctions on Xi's China as they are friends of Russia.

The West has to learn to make it by themselves and never enrich its enemies.. This is a first principle of Biology. We do not see deer going out and feeding lions or tigers. Yet the West from Nixon onwards has been doing nothing but enriching its enemies, to the point that China surpassed the USA in economic power.

We can sell to them to make us richer, but we can never buy from them so that they fight among themselves and grow poorer while we grow richer. This is how you defeat enemies, and this is how you make sure they do not defeat us.

On 2/24/2022 3:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-24 13:56, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 2:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-24 13:33, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address 00000949
>>>>>> performs an unconditional branch to the machine address 00000949 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the above
>>>>> is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you* were
>>>>> competent enough to write a program to recognize this, not that
>>>>> such a program could be written).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies infinitely
>>>> nested simulation and if does not abort its simulation then is
>>>> cannot report.
>>>
>>> That is a separate issue, concerned with whether the infinite
>>> recursion you claim exists actually exists. My post wasn't concerned
>>> with that issue (though Richard is correct)
>>>
>>
>> Until it is understood that embedded_H recognizing the infinitely
>> nested simulation of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a categorical
>> impossibility I have no motivation what-so-ever to proceed to any
>> subsequent steps.
>
> But that is *exactly* the step I am asking you about below. I am asking
> you HOW your embedded_H recognizes infinitely nested recursion.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

The above repeating pattern shows that the correctly simulated input to
embedded_H would never reach its final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn conclusively
proving that this simulated input never halts.

If a TM cannot detect what is obvious for humans to see then the notion
of computation is artificially constrained and thus defined incorrectly.

> This is
> NOT the same problem as recognizing an infinite loop.
>
> So how *exactly* does embedded_H recognize when it is being simulated
> recursively?
>
> Put slightly differently, when you call embedded_H ⟨X⟩ ⟨X⟩ how does it
> distinguish between cases where X = Ĥ (i.e cases where X contains a copy
> of embedded_H) and cases where X does not equal Ĥ (i.e. cases which do
> not involve recursion)?
>
> String comparison won't work. So how do you achieve this?
>
> André
>
>> People that are only looking for one excuse or another to reject my
>> work   and have interest at all in understanding what I am saying must
>> acknowledge each incremental step of mutual agreement before I will
>> proceed to any subsequent steps.
>>
>>> Why not address the ACTUAL point of my post.
>>
>> I just explained why.
>>
>>> How exactly is your embedded_H supposed to recognize infinite
>>> recursion? Please elaborate on the 'string comparison' you claim is
>>> involved.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop() not
>>>> being able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop
>>>> because when H aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop() stops running.
>>>>
>>>>> But the "infinite behaviour pattern" that your embedded_H is
>>>>> supposed to recognize doesn't remotely resemble the pattern above,
>>>>> so the fact that the above pattern can be trivially recognized
>>>>> provides *no* evidence that the pattern found in embedded_H can be
>>>>> algorithmically recognized whatsoever. Ergo, it is entirely
>>>>> pointless for you to keep raising this example. It is an entirely
>>>>> irrelevant example; a red herring.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "infinite recursion" you claim exists when embedded_H is
>>>>> applied to <H^> <H^> requires that your embedded_H be able to
>>>>> recognize that H^ includes a copy of embedded_H within it, not just
>>>>> to find some instance of "HERE: goto HERE" like above.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've claimed that this can be done with string comparison, but to
>>>>> compare strings you need TWO STRINGS TO COMPARE. embedded_H only
>>>>> takes a SINGLE string (or rather two copies of a single string) as
>>>>> its input. So what exactly is it supposed to compare this string to?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

On 2/24/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 3:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-24 13:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-24 13:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 performs an unconditional branch to the machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the
>>>>>>> above is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you*
>>>>>>> were competent enough to write a program to recognize this, not
>>>>>>> that such a program could be written).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies
>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation and if does not abort its simulation
>>>>>> then is cannot report.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a separate issue, concerned with whether the infinite
>>>>> recursion you claim exists actually exists. My post wasn't
>>>>> concerned with that issue (though Richard is correct)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until it is understood that embedded_H recognizing the infinitely
>>>> nested simulation of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a categorical
>>>> impossibility I have no motivation what-so-ever to proceed to any
>>>> subsequent steps.
>>>
>>> But that is *exactly* the step I am asking you about below. I am
>>> asking you HOW your embedded_H recognizes infinitely nested recursion.
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>> The above repeating pattern shows that the correctly simulated input
>> to embedded_H would never reach its final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn conclusively
>> proving that this simulated input never halts.
>>
>> If a TM cannot detect what is obvious for humans to see then the
>> notion of computation is artificially constrained and thus defined
>> incorrectly.
>>
>
> Except that the pattern only happens if H never aborts it simulation, at
> which point H has failed by not answering.
It is at this point on this issue that other reviewers such as {Kaz,
André and Mike} would understand that you are incorrect.

No matter what embedded_H does its simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn specifically because this
input specifies infinitely nested simulation to embedded_H.

These same reviewers would also understand that the fact that the
simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly reach its final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
meets the conventional definition of not halting (cannot reach a final
state).

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/24/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-24 16:41, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 3:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-24 13:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-24 13:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 performs an unconditional branch to the machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the
>>>>>>> above is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you*
>>>>>>> were competent enough to write a program to recognize this, not
>>>>>>> that such a program could be written).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies
>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation and if does not abort its simulation
>>>>>> then is cannot report.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a separate issue, concerned with whether the infinite
>>>>> recursion you claim exists actually exists. My post wasn't
>>>>> concerned with that issue (though Richard is correct)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until it is understood that embedded_H recognizing the infinitely
>>>> nested simulation of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a categorical
>>>> impossibility I have no motivation what-so-ever to proceed to any
>>>> subsequent steps.
>>>
>>> But that is *exactly* the step I am asking you about below. I am
>>> asking you HOW your embedded_H recognizes infinitely nested recursion.
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>> The above repeating pattern shows that the correctly simulated input
>> to embedded_H would never reach its final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn conclusively
>> proving that this simulated input never halts.
>>
>> If a TM cannot detect what is obvious for humans to see then the
>> notion of computation is artificially constrained and thus defined
>> incorrectly.
>
> It is only obvious to a person who has a piece of information that the
> TM does not have; namely, that the string passed to Ĥ is a
> representation of Ĥ. You need to show how a TM can determine that its
> input string is a representation of *itself*. If you can't do this, your
> solution is unworkable.
>

Not until after you agree that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when it
transitions to Ĥ.qn

> And your position that computations are 'defined incorrectly' is absurd.
> That's like claiming that since people can swim and cars cannot, cars
> are 'incorrectly defined'.
>

A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ such
that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).

The notion of incompleteness is defined incorrectly because it does not
screen out self-contradictory expressions of language.

> Computations aren't an attempt to model what people can or cannot do.
>
> André
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/24/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-24 16:41, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 3:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-24 13:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-24 13:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 performs an unconditional branch to the machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the
>>>>>>> above is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you*
>>>>>>> were competent enough to write a program to recognize this, not
>>>>>>> that such a program could be written).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies
>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation and if does not abort its simulation
>>>>>> then is cannot report.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a separate issue, concerned with whether the infinite
>>>>> recursion you claim exists actually exists. My post wasn't
>>>>> concerned with that issue (though Richard is correct)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until it is understood that embedded_H recognizing the infinitely
>>>> nested simulation of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a categorical
>>>> impossibility I have no motivation what-so-ever to proceed to any
>>>> subsequent steps.
>>>
>>> But that is *exactly* the step I am asking you about below. I am
>>> asking you HOW your embedded_H recognizes infinitely nested recursion.
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>> The above repeating pattern shows that the correctly simulated input
>> to embedded_H would never reach its final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn conclusively
>> proving that this simulated input never halts.
>>
>> If a TM cannot detect what is obvious for humans to see then the
>> notion of computation is artificially constrained and thus defined
>> incorrectly.
>
> It is only obvious to a person who has a piece of information that the
> TM does not have; namely, that the string passed to Ĥ is a
> representation of Ĥ.

Therefore when embedded_H transitions to Ĥ.qn it has correctly reported
that its simulated input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never reach its final state of
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn.

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

On 2/24/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 8:30 PM, Python wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 7:13 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 performs an unconditional branch to the machine address
>>>>>>>> 00000949 ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the
>>>>>>> above is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you*
>>>>>>> were competent enough to write a program to recognize this, not
>>>>>>> that such a program could be written).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies
>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation and if does not abort its simulation
>>>>>> then is cannot report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop() not
>>>>>> being able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop
>>>>>> because when H aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop() stops running.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A mindless naysayer.
>>>
>>> Didn't even you noticed the sophistry of your argument?
>>
>> If you think there is an actual error take a shot, this is not about
>> rhetoric.
>>
>
> I think he is just pointing out that YOUR style is to just mindly object
> to what people say without actually trying to understand their arguments.
>
> You have been shown to be wrong so many times, but you never point out
> an actual error in the refutations, but just say they must be wrong.
>

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

Your key rebuttal that embedded_H cannot possibly recognize the
recursive simulation structure of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ was based on
rejecting the whole idea of simulating halt deciders.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/24/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 8:30 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 7:13 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>>>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address
>>>>>>>>>> 00000949 performs an unconditional branch to the machine
>>>>>>>>>> address 00000949 ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the
>>>>>>>>> above is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that *you*
>>>>>>>>> were competent enough to write a program to recognize this, not
>>>>>>>>> that such a program could be written).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because if embedded_H
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no longer specifies
>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation and if does not abort its
>>>>>>>> simulation then is cannot report.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop() not
>>>>>>>> being able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop
>>>>>>>> because when H aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop() stops
>>>>>>>> running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A mindless naysayer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't even you noticed the sophistry of your argument?
>>>>
>>>> If you think there is an actual error take a shot, this is not about
>>>> rhetoric.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think he is just pointing out that YOUR style is to just mindly
>>> object to what people say without actually trying to understand their
>>> arguments.
>>>
>>> You have been shown to be wrong so many times, but you never point
>>> out an actual error in the refutations, but just say they must be wrong.
>>>
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>> Your key rebuttal that embedded_H cannot possibly recognize the
>> recursive simulation structure of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ was based on
>> rejecting the whole idea of simulating halt deciders.
>>
>
> LIE.
>
> It is based on the fact that embedded_H must be a defined algorithm that
> is consistent.
As soon as embedded_H sees the same infinitely repeating pattern that we
see it correctly transitions to its reject state.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/24/2022 10:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/24/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/22 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/22 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 8:30 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 7:13 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here
>>>>>>>>>>>> nitwit
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000949 performs an unconditional branch to the machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> address 00000949 ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that the
>>>>>>>>>>> above is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts that
>>>>>>>>>>> *you* were competent enough to write a program to recognize
>>>>>>>>>>> this, not that such a program could be written).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because if
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no
>>>>>>>>>> longer specifies infinitely nested simulation and if does not
>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation then is cannot report.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>> not being able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an infinite
>>>>>>>>>> loop because when H aborts its simulation _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>> stops running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A mindless naysayer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't even you noticed the sophistry of your argument?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think there is an actual error take a shot, this is not
>>>>>> about rhetoric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think he is just pointing out that YOUR style is to just mindly
>>>>> object to what people say without actually trying to understand
>>>>> their arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been shown to be wrong so many times, but you never point
>>>>> out an actual error in the refutations, but just say they must be
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>
>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>
>>>> Your key rebuttal that embedded_H cannot possibly recognize the
>>>> recursive simulation structure of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ was based on
>>>> rejecting the whole idea of simulating halt deciders.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LIE.
>>>
>>> It is based on the fact that embedded_H must be a defined algorithm
>>> that is consistent.
>> As soon as embedded_H sees the same infinitely repeating pattern that
>> we see it correctly transitions to its reject state.
>>
>
> You aren't reading very well are you.
>
> If embedded_h does that then H^ never creates the infinte loop BECAUSE
> the copy of embedded_H within it broke the loop so it never existed to
> be detected, and whatever pattern embedded_H used turns out to be
> incorrect, or embedded_H never aborts.

This is your rejection of the idea of simulating halt deciders that
continue to simulate their input until they determine that this
simulation would never reach its final state.

This is the same algorithm used to determine that _Infinite_Loop() never
reaches its final state of 0000094c.

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/25/2022 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 10:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/24/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/22 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/22 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 8:30 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 7:13 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-24 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitwit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you still believe that it may be impossibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult to tell that the instruction at machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000949 performs an unconditional branch to the machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address 00000949 ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has disputed that it is possible to recognise that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above is an infinite loop (Richard expressed doubts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that *you* were competent enough to write a program to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize this, not that such a program could be written).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet he keeps claiming that the more complex case of
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is impossible to correctly report because
>>>>>>>>>>>> if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its simulation then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer specifies infinitely nested simulation and if does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not abort its simulation then is cannot report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is precisely analogous the the C/x86 H _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> not being able to report that _Infinite_Loop() is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop because when H aborts its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop() stops running.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A mindless naysayer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't even you noticed the sophistry of your argument?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think there is an actual error take a shot, this is not
>>>>>>>> about rhetoric.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think he is just pointing out that YOUR style is to just mindly
>>>>>>> object to what people say without actually trying to understand
>>>>>>> their arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have been shown to be wrong so many times, but you never
>>>>>>> point out an actual error in the refutations, but just say they
>>>>>>> must be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your key rebuttal that embedded_H cannot possibly recognize the
>>>>>> recursive simulation structure of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ was based on
>>>>>> rejecting the whole idea of simulating halt deciders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LIE.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is based on the fact that embedded_H must be a defined algorithm
>>>>> that is consistent.
>>>> As soon as embedded_H sees the same infinitely repeating pattern
>>>> that we see it correctly transitions to its reject state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You aren't reading very well are you.
>>>
>>> If embedded_h does that then H^ never creates the infinte loop
>>> BECAUSE the copy of embedded_H within it broke the loop so it never
>>> existed to be detected, and whatever pattern embedded_H used turns
>>> out to be incorrect, or embedded_H never aborts.
>>
>> This is your rejection of the idea of simulating halt deciders that
>> continue to simulate their input until they determine that this
>> simulation would never reach its final state.
>>
>> This is the same algorithm used to determine that _Infinite_Loop()
>> never reaches its final state of 0000094c.
>>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>
>>
>
> Pathological LIAR.
>
> THe pattern is different, in essential ways.
>

THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input until they
determine that this simulated input would never reach its final state.

> You are just too dumb to understand.
>
> There is a FATAL flaw in your logic, and you are just going to DIE wrong.
>

So far all you have is rhetoric and have not pointed out a single error.

If you are really really motivated to provide a rebuttal and have no
interest what-so-ever in coming to a mutual agreement on any points then
all of your attempts at rebuttal cannot possibly be more than incoherent
double-talk.

> You have FAILED and made yourself a laughing stock, and that is your
> legacy.
>
> If you were right, and have the program you have claimed, you would be
> able to just write your paper and submit, but YOU know the program
> doesn't work because of this fatal flaw that you refuse to admit, so you

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩