From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 01/05/2026 22:06, dart200 wrote:

you seem to agree the halting problem isn't solvable,

so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,

yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???

wrong (inaccurate) cf. wrong (imprecise) cf. wrong (impertinent), etc...

thing is: why do i care???

That's his game exactly.
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 02/05/2026 00:13, dart200 wrote:

can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???

Yes. Very much so. We have the ability to avoid wasting our time on intermediate experiences.

An infallible system of truth can be created on this
basis.

what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem remains with undecidable input...

The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels
of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of
times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the
others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for
the rest and the previous!

I think Olcott is awesome.
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 6/11/2026 4:12 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 01/05/2026 22:06, dart200 wrote:

you seem to agree the halting problem isn't solvable,

so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,

yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???

wrong (inaccurate) cf. wrong (imprecise) cf. wrong (impertinent), etc...

thing is: why do i care???

That's his game exactly.

Pathological self-reference has always only been
semantic incoherence. The application of ZFC to
Russell's Paradox recognizes this.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 6/11/2026 4:17 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 02/05/2026 00:13, dart200 wrote:

can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???

Yes. Very much so. We have the ability to avoid wasting our time on intermediate experiences.

An infallible system of truth can be created on this
basis.

what more truth have you proposed??? the _same_ problem remains with
undecidable input...

The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels
of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of
times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the
others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for
the rest and the previous!

I think Olcott is awesome.

I am assuming that this is sarcasm, none-the-less
I do greatly respect you.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 11/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2026 4:17 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels
of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of
times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the
others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for
the rest and the previous!

I think Olcott is awesome.

I am assuming that this is sarcasm, none-the-less
I do greatly respect you.

I honestly meant it. I appreciate you as I've said before.
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 6/12/2026 9:28 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 11/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2026 4:17 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

The amazing thing about Olcott, and his genius, is the number of levels
of perspectives for the /meaning/ of his assertions and the number of
times that, for each of them, it is true while being false for the
others, and yet for each of the others it is true while being false for
the rest and the previous!

I think Olcott is awesome.

I am assuming that this is sarcasm, none-the-less
I do greatly respect you.

I honestly meant it. I appreciate you as I've said before.

So that would be a total of one person that feels that way
out of many hundreds across dozens of forums. Eric Hehner PhD
and I also hold very similar views on the Halting Problem.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2