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???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ limitations???
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.
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_
limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ limitations???
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_
limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ limitations??? >>>
On 5/1/2026 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
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.
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.
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_
limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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...
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >>>>> limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
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?
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.
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>>>>> unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the
_same_ limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
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
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding
actually unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the
_same_ limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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?
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?
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>>>>>>>
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding
actually unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the
_same_ limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
that still leaves the problem unsolved as we obviously don't get a
decision on whether DD halts or not.
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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.
On 5/1/2026 4:27 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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
I warned you about it, dart... olcott is an odd one for sure, in very
sick ways... Don't ruin your mind conversing with it?
[...]
On 5/1/2026 4:27 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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
I warned you about it, dart... olcott is an odd one for sure, in very
sick ways... Don't ruin your mind conversing with it?
[...]
On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_
limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_ limitations??? >>>
On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/1/26 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
On 05/01/2026 02:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_
limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time",
the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations,
not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times,
like "it'll happen when it happens".
Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas.
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
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
i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷
at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. instead
of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem being unsolvable...
i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem _more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to prove
that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed semantic
proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have...
idk if this means:
- some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation fundamentally inexpressible
- OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable computations
and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us
- OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable computations to exist
- OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment
- OR some combination of the above
i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago,
and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners
in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
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.
On Fri, 01 May 2026 16:19:49 -0500, 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.
You seem to be claiming that the halting problem contains a category
error: I was the one who first suggested this to be the case in this forum and you ran with it but I have since retracted my own view on this: the halting problem is perfectly sound as defined.
/Flibble
On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/01/2026 02:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_
limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time",
the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations,
not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times,
like "it'll happen when it happens".
Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas.
The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?"
is an incorrect question because it is a type
mismatch error.
It turns out that all of undecidability has only
been a misconception. It has only ever actually been:
(a) Incorrect questions.
(b) Outside of the body of knowledge.
On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/01/2026 02:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually
unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_
limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time",
the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations,
not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times,
like "it'll happen when it happens".
Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas.
The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?"
is an incorrect question because it is a type
mismatch error.
It turns out that all of undecidability has only
been a misconception. It has only ever actually been:
(a) Incorrect questions.
(b) Outside of the body of knowledge.
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
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
of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because
it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression
"unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it
itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent"
i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷
at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work. instead
of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem being
unsolvable...
YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP
i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem
_more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to
prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed
semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have...
idk if this means:
- some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation
fundamentally inexpressible
- OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable computations
and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us
- OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable
computations to exist
- OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment
- OR some combination of the above
i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago,
and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners
in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
On 5/2/26 5:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/01/2026 02:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>>>>> unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >>>>>> limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time",
the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations,
not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times,
like "it'll happen when it happens".
Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas.
The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?"
is an incorrect question because it is a type
mismatch error.
It turns out that all of undecidability has only
been a misconception. It has only ever actually been:
(a) Incorrect questions.
(b) Outside of the body of knowledge.
but we know DD halts so it's obviously not outside "the body of
knowledge", it's just outside the knowledge that HHH itself can
coherently return...
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
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:
of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because
it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression
"unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it
itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent"
i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷
at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work.
instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem
being unsolvable...
YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP
i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem
_more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to
prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed
semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have...
idk if this means:
- some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation
fundamentally inexpressible
- OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable
computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us
- OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable
computations to exist
- OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment
- OR some combination of the above
i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago,
and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners
in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
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?
of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because
it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression
"unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it
itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent"
i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷
at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work.
instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem
being unsolvable...
YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP
i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem
_more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to
prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed
semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have...
idk if this means:
- some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable computation
fundamentally inexpressible
- OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable
computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us
- OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable
computations to exist
- OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment
- OR some combination of the above
i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks ago,
and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners
in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
On 5/2/2026 2:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 5:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/01/2026 02:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why???
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>>>>>> unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >>>>>>> limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time",
the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations,
not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times,
like "it'll happen when it happens".
Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas.
The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?"
is an incorrect question because it is a type
mismatch error.
It turns out that all of undecidability has only
been a misconception. It has only ever actually been:
(a) Incorrect questions.
(b) Outside of the body of knowledge.
but we know DD halts so it's obviously not outside "the body of
knowledge", it's just outside the knowledge that HHH itself can
coherently return...
I am sorry you just must be actually too stupid
to understand this. If the survival of humanity
did not depend on a correct understanding I would
not be this harsh with you.
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
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?
THERE ARE NO FINITE STRING TRANSFORMATION RULES
FROM THE INPUT TO A HALT DECIDER TO THE ACTUAL
BEHAVIOR OF AN INPUT THAT DOES THE OPPOSITE OF
WHATEVER IT REPORTS.
Turing should have figured out that such an input
in semantically invalid in less than five minutes.
of a dead chicken is also unsolvable only because
it lacks coherent semantics. Calling an expression
"unsolvable" because it lack coherent semantics it
itself an error. It is not "unsolvable" it is "incoherent"
i have no idea wtf ur going on about polcott 🤷🤷🤷
at this time, i'm finding your posting detrimental to my work.
instead of reinforcing the consensus position of the halting problem
being unsolvable...
YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WAKE THE FUCK UP
i've been instead trying to find a way to make the halting problem
_more solvable_ in some way, shape, or form. ultimately something to
prove that we _ought_ to be _only_ deploying code with _computed
semantic proofs_ for all the behavior we expect them to have...
idk if this means:
- some kind of logical trick that makes such a unsolvable
computation fundamentally inexpressible
- OR some kind of proof the demonstrates those unsolvable
computations and redundant, uninteresting, or not useful to us
- OR some kind of contradiction formed by allowing those unsolvable
computations to exist
- OR something else i'm forgetting at the moment
- OR some combination of the above
i've kinda stalled at the moment due to having a kid a few weeks
ago, and worse lack of cooperative discussion partners
in what _meaningful_ way does this further our ability?
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
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?
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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:
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.
what are they even lying about???
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid,
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...
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?
On 5/2/26 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/2/2026 2:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/2/26 5:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 10:57 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/01/2026 02:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
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_ ???
can we further our ability in any way shape or form with this
understanding???
so u seem to agree with consensus on the matter,
yet you're going on and on about them being wrong about why??? >>>>>>>>
thing is: why do i care???
what _new abilities_ does ur supposed novel understanding actually >>>>>>>> unlock???
can we _do_ anything more it with it???
cause to me it seems ur proposing a new explanation, for the _same_ >>>>>>>> limitations,
and that is _not at all_ exciting to think about.
why would i care about a "new" explanation for the _same_
limitations???
That's the wrong question word when the answer is "what time",
the "when" interrogative only has temporal-type relations,
not Boolean relations, except for concurrence in times,
like "it'll happen when it happens".
Interrogatives are also indicators, adverbial after copulas.
The question: "What time is it (yes or no)?"
is an incorrect question because it is a type
mismatch error.
It turns out that all of undecidability has only
been a misconception. It has only ever actually been:
(a) Incorrect questions.
(b) Outside of the body of knowledge.
but we know DD halts so it's obviously not outside "the body of
knowledge", it's just outside the knowledge that HHH itself can
coherently return...
I am sorry you just must be actually too stupid
bruh we all know DD halts, and therefore it is _not_ outside the "body
of knowledge" we can know
to understand this. If the survival of humanity
did not depend on a correct understanding I would
not be this harsh with you.
i am aware of the stakes,
but ur tone of writing means _nothing_ to me, i will absolutely not
change my mind to avoid u being massive dick:
please go insult me more, i don't fucking care
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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>
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...
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,
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.
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 5/2/2026 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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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...
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.
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.
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 5/2/26 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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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...
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
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,
and the semantic
property is in regards to the behavior of that encoded machine...
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 5/2/2026 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:So you don't understand what the word NEVER means?
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...
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.
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 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?"
On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,what are they even lying about???
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) ???
"Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point
out that the question is badly formed is correct, too. If you are
designing a device that should answer questions then the answer
"Error: invalid user" could be correct.
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.
Depends on how it is forced. The question does not force anything.
With sufficient forcing the correctness is not relevant.
and preferably indicates what is incorrect in the question,
Type mismatch error.
Perhaps with more details.
perhaps proposing a correction.
The universal truth predicate simply rejects as BAD INPUT.
A predicate cannot reject "as" anything. Its range is restricted to
{false, true}.
Sometimes it is useful to guess
Not allowed. Boolean functions are restricted to Boolean answers.
That does not restrict verbal answers to verbal questions.
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?"
Usually the word "decider" means a Turing machine that always halts
and accepts if the input string is in the set of aceptable strings.
If the specification specifies anything else then the specified
machine is not a decider.
If you want a Turing machine that gives more informatino than just
one bit you may aither have multiple accept states or reject states
or both, or you can put output information to the tape, or use the
final position of the tape head, or you can use any combination of
these.
For the situation asked about you could use one reject state
for valid non-halting input and another for erroneous input (or
several others for different kinds of input error).
On 5/5/2026 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:
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:the halting problem was literally never viewed as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,what are they even lying about???
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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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) ???
"Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point
It is a decision problem thus restricted to (YES or NO).
Halts/Does not Halt does not allow {Bad input} as an answer.
Thus when the input is Bad the question itself is incorrect.
On 06/05/2026 16:54, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2026 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 05/05/2026 19:11, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2026 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:
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:that's the part i'd like to solve:
On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:the halting problem was literally never viewed as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solvable,
what are they even lying about??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular input is undecidable due to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of the input itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid,
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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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) ???
"Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point
It is a decision problem thus restricted to (YES or NO).
No, it is not. It is a question. Though the difference is not
important. A proof that a problem is unsovable, if that proof
can be constructed, is a correct solution to a problem.
Halts/Does not Halt does not allow {Bad input} as an answer.
It does not prevent it, either. If the problem specification restricts
the input then the solution is allowed to give any answer or none if
the input violates the specified restriction. In case of the halting
problem that means that if the input does not describe a Turing and
an input to that machine then a halting decider is allowed to say
"halts", is allowed to say "does not halt", is allowed to say
something else, and is allowed to run forever.
Thus when the input is Bad the question itself is incorrect.
If the input to a halt decider describes a Turing machine and an input
to it then either that Turing machine either halts ot does not halt and
a halting decider is required to truthfully tell whether it halts.
You are not going to understand what the correct answer is
outside of the paradigm of proof theoretic semantics.
Of course I do: a correct answer is an answer that I reagard as correct.
I needn't care ahat the correct answeer is inside of the paradigm of
proof theoretic semantics.
The notion that the body of knowledge expressed as
language is a set of relations between finite strings
fits perfectly within the PTS foundation.
Irrelevant to your quesstion. And the notion does not fit to the usual understanding of "the body of knowledge" is. And the notion does not
help people to satisfy their needs.
Undecidability is the lack of coherent relations between
a finite set of finite strings.
An undecidability is a statement about relations between finte strings.
Some undecidabilities can be proven, some others disproven, but
some are undecidable.
On 5/7/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/05/2026 16:54, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2026 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 05/05/2026 19:11, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2026 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/05/2026 18:29, olcott wrote:It is a decision problem thus restricted to (YES or NO).
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:that's the part i'd like to solve:
On 5/1/26 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/1/2026 10:13 PM, dart200 wrote:the halting problem was literally never viewed as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unsolved problem" within computing, in the first place! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2026 4:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem to agree the halting problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't solvable,
what are they even lying about??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ok. i don't necessarily disagree, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular input is undecidable due to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of the input itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
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?
ur not making it solvable by declaring the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid,
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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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) ???
"Neither" is a correct answer, and so is "Why do you ask?". To point >>>>>
No, it is not. It is a question. Though the difference is not
important. A proof that a problem is unsovable, if that proof
can be constructed, is a correct solution to a problem.
Halts/Does not Halt does not allow {Bad input} as an answer.
It does not prevent it, either. If the problem specification restricts >>>> the input then the solution is allowed to give any answer or none if
the input violates the specified restriction. In case of the halting
problem that means that if the input does not describe a Turing and
an input to that machine then a halting decider is allowed to say
"halts", is allowed to say "does not halt", is allowed to say
something else, and is allowed to run forever.
Thus when the input is Bad the question itself is incorrect.
If the input to a halt decider describes a Turing machine and an input >>>> to it then either that Turing machine either halts ot does not halt and >>>> a halting decider is required to truthfully tell whether it halts.
You are not going to understand what the correct answer is
outside of the paradigm of proof theoretic semantics.
Of course I do: a correct answer is an answer that I reagard as correct.
I needn't care ahat the correct answeer is inside of the paradigm of
proof theoretic semantics.
The notion that the body of knowledge expressed as
language is a set of relations between finite strings
fits perfectly within the PTS foundation.
Irrelevant to your quesstion. And the notion does not fit to the usual
understanding of "the body of knowledge" is. And the notion does not
help people to satisfy their needs.
Undecidability is the lack of coherent relations between
a finite set of finite strings.
An undecidability is a statement about relations between finte strings.
Some undecidabilities can be proven, some others disproven, but
some are undecidable.
Undecidability is the lack of a correct yes/no answer because
(a) The yes / no question is incorrect
(b) The yes / no answer is unknown
If you understood proof theoretic semantics you wouldProof theoretic semantics is not useful here. If something is not
understand this.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,116 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 86:13:09 |
| Calls: | 14,305 |
| Files: | 186,338 |
| D/L today: |
852 files (266M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,525,504 |