On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:what are they even lying about???
On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,
If you would fucking pay close attention: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
is unsolvable.
Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once.
ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is undecidable due to the form of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself...
the problem i'm have with ur proposals is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_why do i care_ ???
I don't give a rat's ass why you care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
climate change is a severe existential threat i agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures.
can we further our ability in any way shape or form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this understanding???
An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis.
what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem remains with undecidable input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you fucking stupid?
yes
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how this is progress
Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get a decision on whether DD halts or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem... >>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
the halting problem was literally never viewed as a "unsolved >>>>>>>>>>> problem" within computing, in the first place!
literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever
written classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just >>>>>>>>>>> like u seem to think now
As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only
because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root
that's the part i'd like to solve:
how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent?
Why can't you tell me the numeric value
of the square-root of a dead chicken?
Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
Why can't you tell me the numeric value
of the square-root of a dead chicken?
Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
Why can't you tell me the numeric value
of the square-root of a dead chicken?
Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want,
It is an accurate analogy.
i can't agree
All incorrect questions are the same in that they
are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers.
There is a correct answer to every question.
If the question is
incorrect a correct answer says that the qestion is incorrect
and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question,
perhaps proposing a correction.
Sometimes it is useful to guess
the intended question and to answer that.
but asking whether a turing machine halts or not is not a category
error. any real turing machine either belongs to the set of halting >>>>> machines or it doesn't. that's a truth by the law of excluded
middle, and if u don't agree then ur just wrong.
It never has been about halting machines it
has always been about semantic properties of
finite strings.
...where the finite string encodes a turing machine,
One indirect reference away from the machine itself.
and the semantic property is in regards to the behavior of that
encoded machine...
The semantic property is the behavior that the finite
string specifies. It is common knowledge across all
of proof theoretic semantics that proofs of inputs must
be finite or input is invalid.
and in fact we already /know/ DD belongs to the set of halting
machines, something i've seen you agree to just a few months ago
u just keep not responding to that agreed fact, and that does not
bode well for whatever it is ur tryin to peddle in the moment.
On 5/4/2026 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 03/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 10:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 3:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 2:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 5:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 3:21 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 7:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 6:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 6:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/26 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:what are they even lying about???
On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,
If you would fucking pay close attention: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no)?
is unsolvable.
Maybe if you would repeat that to yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10,000 times you would bother to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said this at least once.
ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is undecidable due to the form of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself...
the problem i'm have with ur proposals is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_why do i care_ ???
I don't give a rat's ass why you care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objectively it is important because computable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth would expose the liars and thus avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing the whole planet for a few extra bucks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
climate change is a severe existential threat i agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't see how the halting problem or incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates as neither are even mentioned in the paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because of fundamental misconceptions still exist about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we continue to lack a reliable system that divides lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth. This prevents the required quorum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public to implement sufficient climate change remedial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measures.
can we further our ability in any way shape or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form with this understanding???
An infallible system of truth can be created on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis.
what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem remains with undecidable input... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you fucking stupid?
yes
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
The halting problem is unsolvable for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that the question: What time is it (yes or no)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
ok, so the problem remains unsolvable... i'm failing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see how this is progress
Are to too stupid to see that it only remains unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has been stupidly incorrect the whole time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get a decision on whether DD halts or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is is an "unsolved problem" in the same way that no one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever figure out the correct numeric square root of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a dead chicken. In other words it was never ever an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem". It was ALWAYS only a stupid mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so? that still leaves it as an _unsolvable_ problem... >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
the halting problem was literally never viewed as a
"unsolved problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>>>>>
literally the first paper /on computable numbers/ ever >>>>>>>>>>>> written classified the halting problem as unsolvable... just >>>>>>>>>>>> like u seem to think now
As in turns out to actually be it is unsolvable only
because it lacks coherent semantics. The square-root
that's the part i'd like to solve:
how do we make the seemingly incoherent actually coherent? >>>>>>>>>>
Why can't you tell me the numeric value
of the square-root of a dead chicken?
Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
Why can't you tell me the numeric value
of the square-root of a dead chicken?
Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
Why can't you tell me the numeric value
of the square-root of a dead chicken?
Is the question incorrect or are you stupid?
you can screech on with repeated false analogies all you want,
It is an accurate analogy.
i can't agree
All incorrect questions are the same in that they
are intentionally formed to prevent correct answers.
There is a correct answer to every question.
WHAT TIME IS IT (YES OR NO) ???
If the question is
incorrect a correct answer says that the qestion is incorrect
Forced choice. The answer is restricted to YES/NO and must
also be time of day.
and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question,
Type mismatch error.
perhaps proposing a correction.
The universal truth predicate simply rejects as BAD INPUT.
Sometimes it is useful to guess
Not allowed. Boolean functions are restricted to Boolean answers.
the intended question and to answer that.
How do you get a Boolean function Turing Machine
halt decider to return "this input is bad, are you stupid?"
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,116 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 85:27:46 |
| Calls: | 14,305 |
| Files: | 186,338 |
| D/L today: |
647 files (184M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,525,478 |