On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it happens to fit that form much of the time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but decidability problems within computing are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _not_ intentionally modeled after the liar's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox...but it's not "intentional", it just happens to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be part of the total possible ways a machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be constructed,It has always been nuts to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an inputso you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realism
Proof-theoretic semantics is inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; 2000) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions Schroeder- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trolling
with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not reject
an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its
decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
foundational basis for this rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts???
Everyone has been nuts to require a machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result, this kind of circular analytical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox _is_ possible
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE REJECTED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very cleanly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rejects all such inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, no???
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first undecidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation within computing was not considering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the liar's paradox or even godel's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness directly. he was considering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cantor's diagonal formed across all circle- free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines. and without certain fixes, the problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arises when the diagonal machine is deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself as circle- free... this was not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intention constructional, but an artifact of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- references within turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all permutations of turing machine definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also seems completely psychotic that even the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER 2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the framework >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting prover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (without some further explanation of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMPLETELY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does this for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD is a valid machine that halts when executed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named in DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could correctly decide on it...
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input instead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of explaining both perspectives at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in
the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the _original_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, is not a trivial program that produces no output. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it actually performs a computation and deciding on that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's construction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying the decider to all input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple
is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an
infinitely running computation that tests the entire
enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on trying >>>>>>>>>>>> to decide on itself as either a circular or circle-free >>>>>>>>>>>> machine, both of which are infinitely running results. >>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional construction >>>>>>>>>>>> to deceive a decider ... it just is a result of trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> universally apply a true/ false circle-free decider to all >>>>>>>>>>>> machines, causing the decider to fail on deciding itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in >>>>>>>>>>> 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are not >>>>>>>>>> the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this:
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false
dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even the >>>>>>>> simplest.
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing his >>>>>>>> problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to
understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it and >>>>>>>> then trying to apply your logical resolution to it directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly...
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not the
problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code sketch
of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your ideas
might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on trying >>>>>>>>>>>>> to decide on itself as either a circular or circle-free >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, both of which are infinitely running results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it happens to fit that form much of the time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but decidability problems within computing are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _not_ intentionally modeled after the liar's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox...but it's not "intentional", it just happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be part of the total possible ways a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an inputso you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary
unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; 2000) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions Schroeder- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trolling
with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not reject
an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its
decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
foundational basis for this rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts???
Everyone has been nuts to require a machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result, this kind of circular analytical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox _is_ possible
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, no???
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the liar's paradox or even godel's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness directly. he was considering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cantor's diagonal formed across all circle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free machines. and without certain fixes, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem arises when the diagonal machine is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding on itself as circle- free... this was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an intention constructional, but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact of self- references within turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine logic,
they just _are_ a possible construction within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all permutations of turing machine definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also seems completely psychotic that even the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting prover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (without some further explanation of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMPLETELY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does this for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD is a valid machine that halts when executed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD could correctly decide on it...
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the _original_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, is not a trivial program that produces no output. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it actually performs a computation and deciding on that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of applying the decider to all input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional construction >>>>>>>>>>>>> to deceive a decider ... it just is a result of trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> universally apply a true/ false circle-free decider to all >>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, causing the decider to fail on deciding itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back >>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are not >>>>>>>>>>> the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this:
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false
dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even the >>>>>>>>> simplest.
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing >>>>>>>>> his problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to
understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it and >>>>>>>>> then trying to apply your logical resolution to it directly. >>>>>>>>>
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not the >>>>>>> problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code
sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your ideas
might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent decades
on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or circle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> free machine, both of which are infinitely running results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it happens to fit that form much of the time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but decidability problems within computing are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _not_ intentionally modeled after the liar's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox...but it's not "intentional", it just happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be part of the total possible ways a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions Schroeder- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not reject
an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
foundational basis for this rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts???
Everyone has been nuts to require a machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own result, this kind of circular analytical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox _is_ possible
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, no???
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the liar's paradox or even godel's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness directly. he was considering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cantor's diagonal formed across all circle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free machines. and without certain fixes, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem arises when the diagonal machine is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding on itself as circle- free... this was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an intention constructional, but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact of self- references within turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine logic,
they just _are_ a possible construction within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all permutations of turing machine definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also seems completely psychotic that even the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting prover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (without some further explanation of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMPLETELY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does this for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD is a valid machine that halts when executed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the _original_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, is not a trivial program that produces no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of applying the decider to all input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to deceive a decider ... it just is a result of trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universally apply a true/ false circle-free decider to all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, causing the decider to fail on deciding itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are not >>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this:
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>
dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even >>>>>>>>>> the simplest.
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing >>>>>>>>>> his problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to >>>>>>>>>> understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it >>>>>>>>>> and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it directly. >>>>>>>>>>
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not the >>>>>>>> problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code
sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your ideas
might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent decades
on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
It is common understanding that the halting problem
counter-example is that a halt decider is required
to report on the behavior of the encoding of a program
that does the opposite of whatever it reports.
This is merely impossible, thus does not limit computation
any more than the inability to answer this question limits
computation: "What time is it (yes or no)?"
It turns out that when the actual inference steps are
performed according to the semantics of the inference
language in an attempt to prove halting, that this proof
itself would not terminate. It is very well understood
in proof theoretic semantics that non-terminating proof
proof that inputs are meaningless.
Proof-theoretic semantics is inherently inferential,
as it is inferential activity which manifests itself
in proofs. ...inferences and the rules of inference
establish the meaning of expressions.
Schroeder-Heister, Peter, 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ #InfeIntuAntiReal
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
A halt decider evaluates its input according to its own
inference rules — the semantics of its language. When
HHH simulates DD, the simulation cannot terminate.
That non-termination is what DD means as input to HHH.
Objecting that DD halts when run directly is switching
to a different rule system mid-argument. You don't get
to do that. Meaning is defined by the rules you're
actually using.
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or circle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> free machine, both of which are infinitely running results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it happens to fit that form much of the time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but decidability problems within computing are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _not_ intentionally modeled after the liar's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox...but it's not "intentional", it just happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be part of the total possible ways a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions Schroeder- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not reject
an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
foundational basis for this rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts???
Everyone has been nuts to require a machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own result, this kind of circular analytical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox _is_ possible
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, no???
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the liar's paradox or even godel's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness directly. he was considering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cantor's diagonal formed across all circle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free machines. and without certain fixes, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem arises when the diagonal machine is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding on itself as circle- free... this was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an intention constructional, but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact of self- references within turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine logic,
they just _are_ a possible construction within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all permutations of turing machine definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also seems completely psychotic that even the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting prover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (without some further explanation of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMPLETELY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does this for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD is a valid machine that halts when executed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the _original_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, is not a trivial program that produces no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of applying the decider to all input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to deceive a decider ... it just is a result of trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universally apply a true/ false circle-free decider to all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, causing the decider to fail on deciding itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are not >>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this:
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>
dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even >>>>>>>>>> the simplest.
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing >>>>>>>>>> his problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to >>>>>>>>>> understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it >>>>>>>>>> and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it directly. >>>>>>>>>>
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not the >>>>>>>> problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code
sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your ideas
might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent decades
on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even >>>>>>>>>>> the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it happens to fit that form much of the time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but decidability problems within computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are _not_ intentionally modeled after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar's paradox...but it's not "intentional", it just happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be part of the total possible ways a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
foundational basis for this rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to
report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own result, this kind of circular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, no???
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not considering the liar's paradox or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> godel's incompleteness directly. he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering cantor's diagonal formed across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all circle- free machines. and without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain fixes, the problem arises when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal machine is deciding on itself as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free... this was not an intention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructional, but an artifact of self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references within turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions
It also seems completely psychotic that even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting prover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (without some further explanation of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact DD is a valid machine that halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the _original_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, is not a trivial program that produces no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of applying the decider to all input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional
construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a result >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trying to universally apply a true/ false circle-free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to all machines, causing the decider to fail on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are not >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing >>>>>>>>>>> his problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to >>>>>>>>>>> understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it >>>>>>>>>>> and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it directly. >>>>>>>>>>>
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not the >>>>>>>>> problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code
sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your
ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent
decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state transformation functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of whether
DD halt or not?
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even >>>>>>>>>>> the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it happens to fit that form much of the time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but decidability problems within computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are _not_ intentionally modeled after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar's paradox...but it's not "intentional", it just happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be part of the total possible ways a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
foundational basis for this rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to
report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own result, this kind of circular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, no???
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not considering the liar's paradox or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> godel's incompleteness directly. he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering cantor's diagonal formed across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all circle- free machines. and without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain fixes, the problem arises when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal machine is deciding on itself as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free... this was not an intention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructional, but an artifact of self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references within turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions
It also seems completely psychotic that even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting prover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (without some further explanation of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact DD is a valid machine that halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the _original_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, is not a trivial program that produces no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of applying the decider to all input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional
construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a result >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trying to universally apply a true/ false circle-free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to all machines, causing the decider to fail on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are not >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing >>>>>>>>>>> his problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to >>>>>>>>>>> understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it >>>>>>>>>>> and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it directly. >>>>>>>>>>>
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not the >>>>>>>>> problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code
sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your
ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent
decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state transformation functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of whether
DD halt or not?
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even >>>>>>>>>>>> the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it happens to fit that form much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but decidability problems within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing are _not_ intentionally modeled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the liar's paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways a machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to
report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own result, this kind of circular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not considering the liar's paradox or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> godel's incompleteness directly. he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering cantor's diagonal formed across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all circle- free machines. and without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain fixes, the problem arises when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal machine is deciding on itself as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free... this was not an intention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructional, but an artifact of self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references within turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions
It also seems completely psychotic that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prover (without some further explanation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the truth of it being halting is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ascertained)
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this for
every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact DD is a valid machine that halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction of applying the decider to all input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle-free decider to all machines, causing the decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fail on deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing >>>>>>>>>>>> his problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to >>>>>>>>>>>> understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it >>>>>>>>>>>> and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it >>>>>>>>>>>> directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not >>>>>>>>>> the problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code
sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your
ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent
decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state transformation
functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of
whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even >>>>>>>>>>>> the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it happens to fit that form much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but decidability problems within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing are _not_ intentionally modeled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the liar's paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways a machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof- theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts.
i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to
report on an input that was intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own result, this kind of circular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not considering the liar's paradox or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> godel's incompleteness directly. he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering cantor's diagonal formed across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all circle- free machines. and without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain fixes, the problem arises when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal machine is deciding on itself as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free... this was not an intention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructional, but an artifact of self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references within turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions
It also seems completely psychotic that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts as incoherent input to a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prover (without some further explanation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the truth of it being halting is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ascertained)
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this for
every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
the C programming language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact DD is a valid machine that halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back when i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily does it as an artifact of it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction of applying the decider to all input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle-free decider to all machines, causing the decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fail on deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same thing as the halting problem, peter
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and reconstructing >>>>>>>>>>>> his problem definition in whatever psuedo-code u choose to >>>>>>>>>>>> understand exactly the what he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it >>>>>>>>>>>> and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it >>>>>>>>>>>> directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not >>>>>>>>>> the problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code
sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your
ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent
decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state transformation
functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of
whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question
On 4/19/26 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps even >>>>>>>>>>>>> the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yes i know that, truth can be defined relative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it happens to fit that form much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but decidability problems within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing are _not_ intentionally modeled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the liar's paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways a machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries/ proof- theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY NUTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to
report on an input that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally designed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own result, this kind of circular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly
it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not considering the liar's paradox or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> godel's incompleteness directly. he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering cantor's diagonal formed across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all circle- free machines. and without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain fixes, the problem arises when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal machine is deciding on itself as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free... this was not an intention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructional, but an artifact of self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references within turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions
It also seems completely psychotic that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 YEARS.
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not(true(LP))).
false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot just declare a machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly halts as incoherent input to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting prover (without some further >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of how the truth of it being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to drink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this for
every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
the C programming language cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
its own return instruction in any finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact DD is a valid machine that halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it necessarily does it as an artifact of it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction of applying the decider to all input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle-free decider to all machines, causing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to fail on deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same thing as the halting problem, peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the
halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and
reconstructing his problem definition in whatever psuedo- >>>>>>>>>>>>> code u choose to understand exactly the what he demonstrated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending it >>>>>>>>>>>>> and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it >>>>>>>>>>>>> directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not >>>>>>>>>>> the problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code >>>>>>> sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your
ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent
decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state transformation
functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts or not >>>
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of
whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
because he was trying to define the logic to compute an actual
computable sequence pete: the direct diagonal across all circle-free machines, where the Kth digit of the diagonal is the Kth output digit of
the Kth circle-free machine ... something u still haven't grasped,
because u refuse to consider his *actual* argument
u don't have to read the whole paper pete, just p247 would suffice for--
the core uncomputable paradox he bases the rest of his paper on
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question
On 4/20/2026 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/19/26 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yes i know that, truth can be defined relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a reference point. same is true in physical too, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it happens to fit that form much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but decidability problems within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing are _not_ intentionally modeled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the liar's paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways a machine can be constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i'm nuts for suggesting that a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has always been nuts to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://plato.stanford.edu/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries/ proof- theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to
report on an input that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally designed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines referencing themselves (proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by kleene's second recursion theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own result, this kind of circular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very cleanly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not considering the liar's paradox or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> godel's incompleteness directly. he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering cantor's diagonal formed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across all circle- free machines. and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without certain fixes, the problem arises >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the diagonal machine is deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself as circle- free... this was not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intention constructional, but an artifact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of self- references within turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic,
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions
It also seems completely psychotic that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruled to
have always been incoherent nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER 2000 YEARS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not(true(LP))).
false.
The above unequivocally proves that the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot just declare a machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly halts as incoherent input to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting prover (without some further >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of how the truth of it being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drink the
Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this for
every aspect of any input that does not have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite back-chained sequence of inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps
to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
the C programming language cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
its own return instruction in any finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact DD is a valid machine that halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i point that out?
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not named >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computation is an issue.
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns should have been rejected as bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it necessarily does it as an artifact of it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction of applying the decider to all input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle-free decider to all machines, causing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to fail on deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same thing as the halting problem, peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and
reconstructing his problem definition in whatever psuedo- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> code u choose to understand exactly the what he demonstrated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not >>>>>>>>>>>> the problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code >>>>>>>> sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ... >>>>>>>>
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your >>>>>>>> ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter >>>>>>>>
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent
decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state transformation
functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts or
not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of
whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
because he was trying to define the logic to compute an actual
computable sequence pete: the direct diagonal across all circle-free
machines, where the Kth digit of the diagonal is the Kth output digit
of the Kth circle-free machine ... something u still haven't grasped,
because u refuse to consider his *actual* argument
That turns out to be exactly analogous to the Gödel numbers
argument where all of the actual inference steps are hidden.
This only shows that the number is not computable and totally
hides why it is uncomputable.
The Linz proof shows how and why in the most concrete
way (specific state changes) that is also the simplest. https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
HHH/DD shows these inference steps as fully operational code https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
For three years now.
Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/ dp/113318779X **Has agreed with these principles of HHH/DD**
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
u don't have to read the whole paper pete, just p247 would suffice for
the core uncomputable paradox he bases the rest of his paper on
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question
On 4/20/26 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/19/26 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote:is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been nuts to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2 Inferentialism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitionism, anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his 1994; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries/ proof- theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yes i know that, truth can be defined relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a reference point. same is true in physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too,it happens to fit that form much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but decidability problems within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing are _not_ intentionally modeled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the liar's paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i'm nuts for suggesting that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point that question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally designed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports.
but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible ways a machine can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for machines referencing themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (proven by kleene's second recursion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem):
because machines can self-reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own result, this kind of circular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED.
Proof Theoretic Semantics does this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very cleanly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not considering the liar's paradox or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even godel's incompleteness directly. he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was considering cantor's diagonal formed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across all circle- free machines. and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without certain fixes, the problem arises >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the diagonal machine is deciding on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself as circle- free... this was not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intention constructional, but an artifact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of self- references within turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic,
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions
It also seems completely psychotic that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruled to
have always been incoherent nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER 2000 YEARS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
Paradox exactly and precisely within the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
of Proof Theoretic Semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically
incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot just declare a machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly halts as incoherent input to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting prover (without some further >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of how the truth of it being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drink the
Kool-Aid of the conventional view that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
think clearly) you would realize that *NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value
its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS*
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this for
every aspect of any input that does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
finite back-chained sequence of inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps
to valid closure.
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
the C programming language cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
its own return instruction in any finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
to be considered.
i don't need to insult you to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact DD is a valid machine that halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when i point that out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that computation is an issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any input that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
decider returns should have been rejected as bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it necessarily does it as an artifact of it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction of applying the decider to all input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle-free decider to all machines, causing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to fail on deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same thing as the halting problem, peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and
reconstructing his problem definition in whatever psuedo- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code u choose to understand exactly the what he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and then trying to apply your logical resolution to it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas greatly... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's not >>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference
even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL
difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo-code >>>>>>>>> sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he reasoned ... >>>>>>>>>
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your >>>>>>>>> ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter >>>>>>>>>
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent
decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state
transformation functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts
or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of
whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
because he was trying to define the logic to compute an actual
computable sequence pete: the direct diagonal across all circle-free
machines, where the Kth digit of the diagonal is the Kth output digit
of the Kth circle-free machine ... something u still haven't grasped,
because u refuse to consider his *actual* argument
That turns out to be exactly analogous to the Gödel numbers
argument where all of the actual inference steps are hidden.
This only shows that the number is not computable and totally
hides why it is uncomputable.
so you agree with turing???
The Linz proof shows how and why in the most concrete
way (specific state changes) that is also the simplest.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
HHH/DD shows these inference steps as fully operational code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
For three years now.
Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/
dp/113318779X **Has agreed with these principles of HHH/DD**
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
u don't have to read the whole paper pete, just p247 would suffice
for the core uncomputable paradox he bases the rest of his paper on
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question >>>>>
On 4/20/2026 11:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/19/26 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been nuts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2 Inferentialism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitionism, anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1994; 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries/ proof- theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enumeration of machines, and in doing so stumbles on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to decide on itself as either a circular or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free machine, both of which are infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running results.
yes i know that, truth can be defined relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a reference point. same is true in physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too,it happens to fit that form much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but decidability problems within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing are _not_ intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modeled after the liar's paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i'm nuts for suggesting that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point that question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provides the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right but that machine DD _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally designed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports.
but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible ways a machine can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for machines referencing themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (proven by kleene's second recursion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem):
because machines can self-reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own result, this kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circular analytical paradox _is_ possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BE REJECTED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics does this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very cleanly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not considering the liar's paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or even godel's incompleteness directly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was considering cantor's diagonal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formed across all circle- free machines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and without certain fixes, the problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arises when the diagonal machine is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding on itself as circle- free... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this was not an intention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructional, but an artifact of self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references within turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also seems completely psychotic that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the
Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruled to
have always been incoherent nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER 2000 YEARS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
Paradox exactly and precisely within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the framework >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Proof Theoretic Semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
i agree something fishy is going on, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot just declare a machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly halts as incoherent input to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting prover (without some further >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of how the truth of it being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drink the
Kool-Aid of the conventional view that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't
think clearly) you would realize that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *NOT REJECTING*
an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value
its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this for
every aspect of any input that does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
finite back-chained sequence of inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps
to valid closure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
the C programming language cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach
its own return instruction in any finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
of steps. With PTS these inference steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is allowed
to be considered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't need to insult you to point out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact DD is a valid machine that halts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when i point that out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of explaining both perspectives at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that computation is an issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any input that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value its
decider returns should have been rejected as bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, it necessarily does it as an artifact of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's construction of applying the decider to all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle-free decider to all machines, causing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to fail on deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not the same thing as the halting problem, peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconstructing his problem definition in whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psuedo- code u choose to understand exactly the what he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly recommending >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and then trying to apply your logical resolution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greatly...
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference >>>>>>>>>>>>> even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo- >>>>>>>>>> code sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he
reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how your >>>>>>>>>> ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the matter >>>>>>>>>>
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent >>>>>>>> decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state
transformation functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts >>>>>> or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of
whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
because he was trying to define the logic to compute an actual
computable sequence pete: the direct diagonal across all circle-free
machines, where the Kth digit of the diagonal is the Kth output
digit of the Kth circle-free machine ... something u still haven't
grasped, because u refuse to consider his *actual* argument
That turns out to be exactly analogous to the Gödel numbers
argument where all of the actual inference steps are hidden.
This only shows that the number is not computable and totally
hides why it is uncomputable.
so you agree with turing???
Turing (as I just explained is a cheap copy cat of Gödel).
Modern versions such as Linz don't look so cheap.
The Linz proof shows how and why in the most concrete
way (specific state changes) that is also the simplest.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
HHH/DD shows these inference steps as fully operational code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
For three years now.
Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
Sipser/ dp/113318779X **Has agreed with these principles of HHH/DD**
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
u don't have to read the whole paper pete, just p247 would suffice
for the core uncomputable paradox he bases the rest of his paper on
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different question >>>>>>
On 4/20/26 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2026 11:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/19/26 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps even the simplest.
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been nuts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2 Inferentialism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitionism, anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1994; 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries/ proof- theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point that question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provides the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running computation that tests the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire enumeration of machines, and in doing so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumbles on trying to decide on itself as either a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circular or circle- free machine, both of which are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely running results.
yes i know that, truth can be defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to a reference point. same is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in physical too,it happens to fit that form much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but decidability problems within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing are _not_ intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modeled after the liar's paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible ways a machine can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i'm nuts for suggesting that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>right but that machine DD _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sew UR nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally designed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for machines referencing themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (proven by kleene's second recursion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own result, this kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circular analytical paradox _is_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BE REJECTED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics does this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very cleanly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not considering the liar's paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or even godel's incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly. he was considering cantor's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal formed across all circle- free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines. and without certain fixes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem arises when the diagonal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine is deciding on itself as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle- free... this was not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intention constructional, but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact of self- references within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible construction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all permutations of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also seems completely psychotic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that even the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruled to
have always been incoherent nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER 2000 YEARS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar
Paradox exactly and precisely within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the framework >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Proof Theoretic Semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i agree something fishy is going on, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we cannot just declare a machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that certainly halts as incoherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a halting prover (without some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further explanation of how the truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drink the
Kool-Aid of the conventional view that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't
think clearly) you would realize that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *NOT REJECTING* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does this for
every aspect of any input that does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
finite back-chained sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
the C programming language cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
of steps. With PTS these inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is allowed
to be considered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't need to insult you to point out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact DD is a valid machine that halts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when executed,
why do u think u need to insult me back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when i point that out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider.
i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (yes/ no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input instead of explaining both perspectives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the same time
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and deciding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that computation is an issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any input that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value its
decider returns should have been rejected as bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, it necessarily does it as an artifact of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's construction of applying the decider to all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle-free decider to all machines, causing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to fail on deciding itself.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not the same thing as the halting problem, peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconstructing his problem definition in whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psuedo- code u choose to understand exactly the what he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommending it and then trying to apply your logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution to it directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greatly...
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the problem as described by turing himself
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo- >>>>>>>>>>> code sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he
reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how >>>>>>>>>>> your ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the >>>>>>>>>>> matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent >>>>>>>>> decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state
transformation functions that define the runtime of the machine
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it halts >>>>>>> or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of >>>>>>> whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
because he was trying to define the logic to compute an actual
computable sequence pete: the direct diagonal across all circle-
free machines, where the Kth digit of the diagonal is the Kth
output digit of the Kth circle-free machine ... something u still
haven't grasped, because u refuse to consider his *actual* argument
That turns out to be exactly analogous to the Gödel numbers
argument where all of the actual inference steps are hidden.
This only shows that the number is not computable and totally
hides why it is uncomputable.
so you agree with turing???
Turing (as I just explained is a cheap copy cat of Gödel).
calling turing a cheap copy cat of godel is pretty rich since he
invented the foundational model of computing that the rest of our infrastructure is built off of ... that was a pretty damn functional achievement vs whatever tf godel did.
i get the math guys all take it up the butt about his supposedly
ingenious "truth that has no proof", but what a meaningless claim to get
all excited about
Modern versions such as Linz don't look so cheap.
turing's version isn't a contrived issue. it was a result of considering
the functional problem of being able to compute the limit of computable numbers, and what might happen if we could...
how does your solution relate to *actual* diagonal problem as presented
by turing? are you suggesting we just skip machines deemed "invalid
input"? or something else?
The Linz proof shows how and why in the most concrete
way (specific state changes) that is also the simplest.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
HHH/DD shows these inference steps as fully operational code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
For three years now.
Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
Sipser/ dp/113318779X **Has agreed with these principles of HHH/DD**
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>
u don't have to read the whole paper pete, just p247 would suffice
for the core uncomputable paradox he bases the rest of his paper on
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different
question
On 4/21/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2026 11:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/19/26 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2026 2:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 2:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/18/26 5:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2026 1:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 10:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/16/26 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2026 9:59 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 7:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 9:04 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/26 11:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2026 12:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 9:37 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/26 8:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 6:44 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/26 6:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been nuts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that an input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value a halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider returns is a valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. Ordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unadulterated proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the complete and perfect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject these inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2 Inferentialism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitionism, anti- realism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently inferential, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is inferential activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which manifests itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in proofs. It thus belongs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferentialism (a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coined by Brandom, see his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1994; 2000) according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which inferences and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of inference establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schroeder- Heister, Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2024 "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries/ proof- theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ #InfeIntuAntiReal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you do agree DD halts when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed??? or not??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point that question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes pure trolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with zero honest dialogue intent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has ALWAYS been 100% TOTALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUTS to not reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of whatever its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provides the complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational basis for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished algorithmically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right but that machine DD _does_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
is it not "isomorhpic" to the liar's paradox, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinitely running computation that tests the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire enumeration of machines, and in doing so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumbles on trying to decide on itself as either a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circular or circle- free machine, both of which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are infinitely running results.yes i know that, truth can be defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to a reference point. same is true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in physical too,i thought we agreed an HHH1 which is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named in DD could correctly decide on it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it happens to fit that form much of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time, but decidability problems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within computing are _not_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally modeled after the liar's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but it's not "intentional", it just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be part of the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible ways a machine can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sew UR nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i'm nuts for suggesting that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting machine halts??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone has been nuts to require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on an input that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally designed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
specifically because the possibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for machines referencing themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (proven by kleene's second recursion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
because machines can self-reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own result, this kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circular analytical paradox _is_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
except DD _is_ a valid machine, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _does_ halt, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BAD DATA TO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BE REJECTED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics does this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very cleanly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rejects all such inputs as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE LIAR PARADOX. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turing when he stumbled on the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable situation within computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not considering the liar's paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or even godel's incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly. he was considering cantor's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal formed across all circle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free machines. and without certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes, the problem arises when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal machine is deciding on itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as circle- free... this was not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intention constructional, but an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact of self- references within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turing machine logic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they just _are_ a possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction within all permutations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of turing machine definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also seems completely psychotic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that even the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox has not been OFFICIALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruled to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have always been incoherent nonsense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER 2000 YEARS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
% This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
The above unequivocally proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox exactly and precisely within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the framework >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Proof Theoretic Semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i agree something fishy is going on, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we cannot just declare a machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that certainly halts as incoherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a halting prover (without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some further explanation of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of it being halting is ascertained) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless UR nuts (or so indoctrinated to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drink the
Kool-Aid of the conventional view that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't
think clearly) you would realize that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *NOT REJECTING* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decider returns *HAS ALWAYS BEEN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY NUTS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof Theoretic Semantics inherently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does this for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every aspect of any input that does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
finite back-chained sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to valid closure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DD simulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own return instruction in any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. With PTS these inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps are
THE WHOLE GAME. Absolutely nothing else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is allowed
to be considered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't need to insult you to point out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact DD is a valid machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts when executed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
why do u think u need to insult me back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when i point that out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep changing the subject away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DD has always been a bad input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any halt decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (yes/ no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but u keep repeating on and on about bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input instead of explaining both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspectives at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't allocate equal weight to falsehoods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP counter-example input has always been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad and the only reason this is not universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood is that sheeple herd together in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional views.
no, turing's diagonal counter-example, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _original_ problem, is not a trivial program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that produces no output.
it actually performs a computation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding on that computation is an issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any input that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value its
decider returns should have been rejected as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad input
is dead obvious.
the computation doesn't _try_ to contradict >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, it necessarily does it as an artifact of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's construction of applying the decider to all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input...
It is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox and the sheeple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the liar's paradox does no such thing even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the circle-free paradox is not an intentional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction to deceive a decider ... it just is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of trying to universally apply a true/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false circle-free decider to all machines, causing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decider to fail on deciding itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox back in 2004
the circle-free problem found in turing's diagonals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not the same thing as the halting problem, peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are claiming that all of the textbooks about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem are a complete misrepresentation this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/
Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
_complete_ misrepresentation??? no that would be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false dichotomy. it's a simpler form of the problem, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps even the simplest.
but i do recommend carefully reading p247 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconstructing his problem definition in whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psuedo- code u choose to understand exactly the what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he demonstrated.
i don't think u will polcott, but i'm truly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommending it and then trying to apply your logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution to it directly.
i found that doing so helped my advanced my ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greatly...
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
peter, that's just copy pasting a halting problem, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the problem as described by turing himself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rick managed to do it, can you?
So you are incapable of showing a MATERIAL difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though you really really believe such a MATERIAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference exists.
yes, post what his machine does in psuedo-code
So you do not understand actual real code?
no i just want u to work thru his logic peter and a psuedo- >>>>>>>>>>>> code sketch of what he was getting at, at the level he >>>>>>>>>>>> reasoned ...
no idea what ur being so resistant, i'm curious as to how >>>>>>>>>>>> your ideas might apply but ur refusing to even look into the >>>>>>>>>>>> matter
I refuse to "look into" any logical impossibilities
and instead try to effectively communicate how and
and why they are logical impossible.
Can you understand that "looking into" logical
impossibilities is necessarily fruitless?
ok so you actually agree with consensus??? what have you spent >>>>>>>>>> decades on then bro??? lol
jeez this is so tiring
The answer to the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"
also does not limit computation in any way at all.
Logical impossible inputs are incorrect questions.
that's a false analogy bro
All impossible questions are exactly equally impossible
DD _is_ a machine, specifically a finite set of state
transformation functions that define the runtime of the machine >>>>>>>>
consequentially, DD _has_ a semantic property of whether it
halts or not
it is then necessarily _valid_ to ask the true/false question of >>>>>>>> whether DD halt or not?
It is absolutely impossible when the input does the
opposite of whatever HHH reports. Why did Turing not
see this in the first five minutes?
because he was trying to define the logic to compute an actual
computable sequence pete: the direct diagonal across all circle-
free machines, where the Kth digit of the diagonal is the Kth
output digit of the Kth circle-free machine ... something u still >>>>>> haven't grasped, because u refuse to consider his *actual* argument >>>>>>
That turns out to be exactly analogous to the Gödel numbers
argument where all of the actual inference steps are hidden.
This only shows that the number is not computable and totally
hides why it is uncomputable.
so you agree with turing???
Turing (as I just explained is a cheap copy cat of Gödel).
calling turing a cheap copy cat of godel is pretty rich since he
invented the foundational model of computing that the rest of our
infrastructure is built off of ... that was a pretty damn functional
achievement vs whatever tf godel did.
On with regards to his https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
He is the father of modern computation and deserves the
away named after his on this basis.
My other post had all the important stuff that you
just ignored.
i get the math guys all take it up the butt about his supposedly
ingenious "truth that has no proof", but what a meaningless claim to
get all excited about
Modern versions such as Linz don't look so cheap.
turing's version isn't a contrived issue. it was a result of
considering the functional problem of being able to compute the limit
of computable numbers, and what might happen if we could...
how does your solution relate to *actual* diagonal problem as
presented by turing? are you suggesting we just skip machines deemed
"invalid input"? or something else?
The Linz proof shows how and why in the most concrete
way (specific state changes) that is also the simplest.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
HHH/DD shows these inference steps as fully operational code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
For three years now.
Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
Sipser/ dp/113318779X **Has agreed with these principles of HHH/DD** >>>>>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>
u don't have to read the whole paper pete, just p247 would suffice >>>>>> for the core uncomputable paradox he bases the rest of his paper on >>>>>>
whether that answer is provable or computable is a different
question
On 4/21/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/21/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:>>>> Turing (as I just explained is a cheap copy cat of Gödel).
calling turing a cheap copy cat of godel is pretty rich since he
invented the foundational model of computing that the rest of our
infrastructure is built off of ... that was a pretty damn functional
achievement vs whatever tf godel did.
On with regards to his
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
He is the father of modern computation and deserves the
away named after his on this basis.
My other post had all the important stuff that you
just ignored.
i'm sorry how this answer for what to do about "invalid input" while computing the diagonal???
On 4/21/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/21/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/21/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:>>>> Turing (as I just explained is
a cheap copy cat of Gödel).
calling turing a cheap copy cat of godel is pretty rich since he
invented the foundational model of computing that the rest of our
infrastructure is built off of ... that was a pretty damn
functional achievement vs whatever tf godel did.
On with regards to his
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
He is the father of modern computation and deserves the
away named after his on this basis.
My other post had all the important stuff that you
just ignored.
i'm sorry how this answer for what to do about "invalid input" while
computing the diagonal???
Only when the convoluted mess of the diagonal is translated
On 4/21/26 12:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/21/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/21/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/21/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:>>>> Turing (as I just explained
is a cheap copy cat of Gödel).
calling turing a cheap copy cat of godel is pretty rich since he
invented the foundational model of computing that the rest of our
infrastructure is built off of ... that was a pretty damn
functional achievement vs whatever tf godel did.
On with regards to his
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
He is the father of modern computation and deserves the
away named after his on this basis.
My other post had all the important stuff that you
just ignored.
i'm sorry how this answer for what to do about "invalid input" while
computing the diagonal???
Only when the convoluted mess of the diagonal is translated
the diagonal isn't a convoluted mess polcott, all we're doing is
- enumerating out the machines (by iterating over the natural numbers)
- testing each possible machine for circle-freeness
- adding the Kth digit of the Kth circle-free machine to the diagonal
what do we do for machines which test "invalid input"?
On 4/21/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/21/26 12:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/21/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/21/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/21/2026 12:26 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/20/26 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:>>>> Turing (as I just explained >>>>>> is a cheap copy cat of Gödel).
calling turing a cheap copy cat of godel is pretty rich since he
invented the foundational model of computing that the rest of our >>>>>> infrastructure is built off of ... that was a pretty damn
functional achievement vs whatever tf godel did.
On with regards to his
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
He is the father of modern computation and deserves the
away named after his on this basis.
My other post had all the important stuff that you
just ignored.
i'm sorry how this answer for what to do about "invalid input" while
computing the diagonal???
Only when the convoluted mess of the diagonal is translated
the diagonal isn't a convoluted mess polcott, all we're doing is
- enumerating out the machines (by iterating over the natural numbers)
- testing each possible machine for circle-freeness
- adding the Kth digit of the Kth circle-free machine to the diagonal
what do we do for machines which test "invalid input"?
This one is the clearest diagonal proof https://www.liarparadox.org/Sipser_165_167.pdf
All diagonal proofs always totally ignore WHY halting
is undecidable and only prove THAT halting is undecidable.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,124 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 22:13:46 |
| Calls: | 14,392 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,389 |
| D/L today: |
3,262 files (799M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,544,917 |
| Posted today: | 1 |