XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:

On 7/5/2025 7:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <[email protected]> wrote:

On 7/4/2025 8:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:34:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

[ .... ]

All that I have done is refute the conventional halting problem proof >>>>> technique.

You have not. You've not even come close.

That you do not even know the details of my work gives
you no basis to refute it.

The theorem you so despise is a theorem. It has been proven, and I have verified that proof. I am a graduate mathematician. This is sufficient
basis to dismiss your unfounded falsehoods.

[ Irrelevant stuff deleted. ]

Once this is accepted as correct I will move on to the next best
proof after that.

Which one is that? And what is your goal if not refuting the halting
theorem?

To conquer each proof of the HP one at a time.

You're a clueless fool. You don't understand in the abstract what a
proof is, and you don't understand this particular proof.

The reason that I am doing this is that people have a fundamentally
incorrect understanding about how truth itself actually works.

You're a clueless fool. You yourself have no correct understanding about
truth.

All you have is rhetoric and ad hominem that is entirely
bereft of any supporting reasoning.

Wrong. As I said, I have a degree in maths; you don't. For the
supporting reasoning, I have the proof of the theorem you falsely deny.

No one even tries to point out any actual mistake even when repeatedly
dared to do this.

Several years of experience in this newsgroups shows that you invariably
ignore your many mistakes that people point out.

In particular, when a mathematical result is proven by a
mathematical proof, it is true.

<sarcasm>
Sure because all mathematicians that created these proofs
are inherently infallible. If God himself pointed out any
error this would be blasphemy.

The proof of this is that Naive set theory is still infallible
and ZFC is just some head game that has no actual value at all.
</sarcasm>

The above isn't worth addressing. It just shows your lack of
understanding of maths and science and their history.

The proof you delude yourself you have "conquered" is a valid proof.
It was formulated by mathematicians much brighter than either of us,
and is an exceptionally simple and clear proof. Any reasonably bright
undergraduate can grasp it in a few minutes.

You can't even correctly point out one single detail of any
actual mistake that I made that would invalidate my proof.

You lie. You don't have a proof. Many people in this group have pointed
out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, which you
just ignore. The section in Professor Linz's book you used to be so fond
of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would take the
trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such understanding).

Anyhow, you are just a crank. It is entirely the wrong thing to do to
engage a crank on his own terms, and I don't intend to start.

Because of these misconceptions there has been no objective way to
divide truth from well crafted lies.

A great deal of what you post on this newsgroup is lies, though I
wouldn't call them well crafted. You simply have no well developed
notion of what truth is.

There has never been an objective way to differentiate truth from
falsehood in politics and general discourse.

Yet.
*What I am proposing is a giant expansion of the syllogism*
Every meaning of every natural language word is mathematically
formalized using an extension to Montague Grammar. These are
all in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. This creates
a finite list of all of the basis facts of the world.

A grand project indeed. Whether or not it is possible is doubtful. I
believe it is neither possible nor desirable.

There is, though, in the field of mathematics and, to a lesser degree,
science. You reject that objective way, however, confusing truth with
what you would like to be true.

This is causing the rise of the fourth Reich and
the destruction of the planet through climate change.

You are (deliberately?) confusing different types of truth. Mathematics
and science are no defence against politicians like failed artists and
failed business men. Unfortunately.

No this too is not my error. It is actually the error
of Willard Van Orman Quine https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
that used double talk and weasel words to convince most
people that analytic truth does not exist. He couldn't
even figure out how we know that bachelors are unmarried.

<Sigh>. What would it take to make you see your own true intellectual
prowess, and that it is considerably less than that of the intellectual
giants of recent centuries?

The type of truth that I refer to here is expressions of
language that are proven completely true entirely on the
basis of other expressions of language.

This is unattainable for many reasons. But I would encourage you to
persue this goal rather than continually post naive falsehoods on this newsgroup. Even so, this type of truth wouldn't persuade people in
general, just as mathematical proof doesn't persuade you.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:

On 7/6/2025 5:16 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <[email protected]> wrote:

On 7/5/2025 2:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

You lie. You don't have a proof. Many people in this group have pointed >>>> out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, which you >>>> just ignore. The section in Professor Linz's book you used to be so fond >>>> of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would take the
trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such understanding).

I have addressed ....

Meaningless pompous word.

.... all of those details that you make sure to ignore so that you can
baselessly claim that I am wrong.

I vaguely remember rolling my eyes at your hopeless lack of
understanding. It was like watching a 7 year old trying to do calculus.
The basic understanding was simply not there. Years later, it's still
not there.

And yes, you are wrong. The proofs of the halting theorem which involve
constructing programs which purported halting deciders cannot decide
correctly are correct.

Yet you cannot point to even one mistake because there are none.

That's what I'm saying. Those proofs of the halting theorem are free
from mistakes.

More to the point, it is YOU who cannot point to any mistakes in them.
They are valid proofs. Your work, if it contradicts those proofs (which
isn't at all clear) can thus be dismissed without further consideration.

There cannot possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that does the
opposite of whatever its decider decides. All of the examples
of this have never been *ACTUAL INPUTS*

That's so sloppily worded, it could mean almost anything.

The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed.

It has been constructed, and is valid. But one would normally talk about formulating a proof, rather than constructing one.

[ .... ]

No Turing machine can possibly take another directly executing
Turing machine as in input, thus removing these from the
domain of every halt decider.

And that, too.

*Thus the requirement that HHH report on the behavior*
*of the directly executed DD has always been bogus*

And that makes your hat trick.

Turing machine partial halt deciders compute the mapping
from their actual inputs to the actual behavior that these
inputs specify.

And a fourth. There's some semblance of truth in there, but it's very
confused.

It is not at all confused. I know exactly what it means.

It's very confused to everybody but you, then.

Sloppy wording is your technique to get people to go down to your level
of discussion. That involves many posts trying just to tie you down to
specific word meanings, and is very tiresome and unrewarding. I decline
to get involved any further.

*Yet as I claimed you found no actual mistake*

I've found plenty of actual mistakes. I was a software developer by profession.

Let me tell you the punchline so that you can
see why I said those things.

Despite what I said last post, I will actually go to the trouble of
analysing your sloppy expression.

Because directly executed Turing machines cannot
possibly be inputs to Turing machine deciders this
makes them outside of the domain of these deciders.

It's entirely unclear what a "directly executed Turing machine" is. Most
of the time turing machines are theoretical constructs used for proving theorems. They can be executed, but rarely are.

It's unclear what you mean by a turing machine being an input to a turing machine. Read up about universal turing machines to get a bit of
background.

When a partial halt decider is required to report
on the direct execution of a machine this requirement
is bogus.

See above. That paragraph is meaningless.

This means that the behavior of DD() is none of the damn
business of HHH, thus does not contradict HHH(DD)==0.
*If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*

It's fully obscure what DD() and HHH mean, and thus impossible to
affirm or contradict the meaningless "HHH(DD)==0".

HHH(DD) does correctly detect that DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics pf the C programming language
cannot possibly reach its own "return"statement final
halt state.

See above. By the way, people concerned with computation theory use
turing machines, which are well-defined, simple, and powerful. They lack
the complexity, ambiguity, and unsuitability for theoretical work of real
world programming languages like C.

*If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*

Any mindless idiot can disagree. Showing an error and proving
that it is an actual mistake requires much more than this.

Indeed. All you have done is disagree with one of the proofs of the
halting theorem. You have yet to show an error in it. That will be
difficult, because there aren't any.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)