On 8/14/2025 6:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:09, olcott wrote:Because the faulty reasoning used in the halting problem
On 8/14/2025 6:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 12:58, olcott wrote:
As I must keep repeating I am not trying to make an
omniscient halt decider that refutes the halting problem
because I don't have the thousand years that this would
take if it was possible.
You keep writing words to this affect, and I always find it rather
confusing.
There's only two logical possibilities: Either a universal halt
decider is possible or it is not possible. If it is NOT possible,
then it makes very little sense for you to go to great lengths to
"disprove" the "conventional" halting-problem proofs.
I keep getting clearer and clearer ways of saying this
as I keep getting more and more dialogue.
I have proved that the conventional proofs do not prove
the non-existence of a universal halt decider.
Change the subject away from this and you are off-topic.
You're missing the point. I'm asking you *why* you are determined to
"prov[e] that the conventional proofs do not prove the non-existence
of a universal halt decider."
proofs is the exact same faulty reasoning used in the
Tarski undefinability theorem and this prevents humanity
from having an objective measure of truth.
On 8/14/2025 7:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 18:14, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2025 6:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:09, olcott wrote:Because the faulty reasoning used in the halting problem
On 8/14/2025 6:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 12:58, olcott wrote:
As I must keep repeating I am not trying to make an
omniscient halt decider that refutes the halting problem
because I don't have the thousand years that this would
take if it was possible.
You keep writing words to this affect, and I always find it rather >>>>>> confusing.
There's only two logical possibilities: Either a universal halt
decider is possible or it is not possible. If it is NOT possible,
then it makes very little sense for you to go to great lengths to
"disprove" the "conventional" halting-problem proofs.
I keep getting clearer and clearer ways of saying this
as I keep getting more and more dialogue.
I have proved that the conventional proofs do not prove
the non-existence of a universal halt decider.
Change the subject away from this and you are off-topic.
You're missing the point. I'm asking you *why* you are determined to
"prov[e] that the conventional proofs do not prove the non-existence
of a universal halt decider."
proofs is the exact same faulty reasoning used in the
Tarski undefinability theorem and this prevents humanity
from having an objective measure of truth.
That doesn't really answer my question, though that's partially my
fault for using improper punctuation in my original post. Let me
repeat the question with the correct punctuation:
Why you are determined to "prov[e] that the conventional proofs do not
prove the non-existence of a universal halt decider,"
(1) I really did already prove this and everyone
is trying to get away with gaslighting me on this.
If you ask again I will repeat that same answer 500 times.
Every time you ask I will repeat that same answer 500 times.
On 8/14/2025 7:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 18:14, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2025 6:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:09, olcott wrote:Because the faulty reasoning used in the halting problem
On 8/14/2025 6:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 12:58, olcott wrote:
As I must keep repeating I am not trying to make an
omniscient halt decider that refutes the halting problem
because I don't have the thousand years that this would
take if it was possible.
You keep writing words to this affect, and I always find it rather >>>>>> confusing.
There's only two logical possibilities: Either a universal halt
decider is possible or it is not possible. If it is NOT possible,
then it makes very little sense for you to go to great lengths to
"disprove" the "conventional" halting-problem proofs.
I keep getting clearer and clearer ways of saying this
as I keep getting more and more dialogue.
I have proved that the conventional proofs do not prove
the non-existence of a universal halt decider.
Change the subject away from this and you are off-topic.
You're missing the point. I'm asking you *why* you are determined to
"prov[e] that the conventional proofs do not prove the non-existence
of a universal halt decider."
proofs is the exact same faulty reasoning used in the
Tarski undefinability theorem and this prevents humanity
from having an objective measure of truth.
That doesn't really answer my question, though that's partially my
fault for using improper punctuation in my original post. Let me
repeat the question with the correct punctuation:
Why you are determined to "prov[e] that the conventional proofs do not
prove the non-existence of a universal halt decider," while at the
same time refusing to commit to the possibility of such a decider?
André
The last part of your question is a false presupposition.
Should I answer questions that have falsehoods built it?
That would be my acquiesce to deception.
On 8/14/2025 8:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 19:01, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2025 7:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 18:14, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2025 6:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:09, olcott wrote:Because the faulty reasoning used in the halting problem
On 8/14/2025 6:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 12:58, olcott wrote:I keep getting clearer and clearer ways of saying this
As I must keep repeating I am not trying to make an
omniscient halt decider that refutes the halting problem
because I don't have the thousand years that this would
take if it was possible.
You keep writing words to this affect, and I always find it
rather confusing.
There's only two logical possibilities: Either a universal halt >>>>>>>> decider is possible or it is not possible. If it is NOT
possible, then it makes very little sense for you to go to great >>>>>>>> lengths to "disprove" the "conventional" halting-problem proofs. >>>>>>>
as I keep getting more and more dialogue.
I have proved that the conventional proofs do not prove
the non-existence of a universal halt decider.
Change the subject away from this and you are off-topic.
You're missing the point. I'm asking you *why* you are determined
to "prov[e] that the conventional proofs do not prove the non-
existence of a universal halt decider."
proofs is the exact same faulty reasoning used in the
Tarski undefinability theorem and this prevents humanity
from having an objective measure of truth.
That doesn't really answer my question, though that's partially my
fault for using improper punctuation in my original post. Let me
repeat the question with the correct punctuation:
Why you are determined to "prov[e] that the conventional proofs do
not prove the non-existence of a universal halt decider," while at
the same time refusing to commit to the possibility of such a decider? >>>>
André
The last part of your question is a false presupposition.
Should I answer questions that have falsehoods built it?
That would be my acquiesce to deception.
So in other words you are asserting the existence of a universal halt
decider?
André
I don't give a rat's ass about that.
I do care about how people verify
what is true and what is not true.
On 8/14/2025 8:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 19:10, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2025 8:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 19:01, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2025 7:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 18:14, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2025 6:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:09, olcott wrote:Because the faulty reasoning used in the halting problem
On 8/14/2025 6:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-14 12:58, olcott wrote:
As I must keep repeating I am not trying to make an
omniscient halt decider that refutes the halting problem >>>>>>>>>>> because I don't have the thousand years that this would
take if it was possible.
You keep writing words to this affect, and I always find it >>>>>>>>>> rather confusing.
There's only two logical possibilities: Either a universal >>>>>>>>>> halt decider is possible or it is not possible. If it is NOT >>>>>>>>>> possible, then it makes very little sense for you to go to >>>>>>>>>> great lengths to "disprove" the "conventional" halting-problem >>>>>>>>>> proofs.
I keep getting clearer and clearer ways of saying this
as I keep getting more and more dialogue.
I have proved that the conventional proofs do not prove
the non-existence of a universal halt decider.
Change the subject away from this and you are off-topic.
You're missing the point. I'm asking you *why* you are
determined to "prov[e] that the conventional proofs do not prove >>>>>>>> the non- existence of a universal halt decider."
proofs is the exact same faulty reasoning used in the
Tarski undefinability theorem and this prevents humanity
from having an objective measure of truth.
That doesn't really answer my question, though that's partially my >>>>>> fault for using improper punctuation in my original post. Let me
repeat the question with the correct punctuation:
Why you are determined to "prov[e] that the conventional proofs do >>>>>> not prove the non-existence of a universal halt decider," while at >>>>>> the same time refusing to commit to the possibility of such a
decider?
André
The last part of your question is a false presupposition.
Should I answer questions that have falsehoods built it?
That would be my acquiesce to deception.
So in other words you are asserting the existence of a universal
halt decider?
André
I don't give a rat's ass about that.
I do care about how people verify
what is true and what is not true.
So is it then your position that the proofs you have looked at are all
flawed but that there *might* still exist a proof that solving the
halting problem is impossible, just not one that you have seen?
All of the conventional proofs are flawed, including
the one that Ben Bacarisse referred to.
Once my refutation of those proofs is accepted I
will have credibility that my ideas on Tarski will
be given enormously much more weight.
Or do you think that it is *in principle* impossible to prove that
halting is uncomputable?
André
It may be easy, I don't care.
I only care about the objectively correct way to
attain truth because righteousness cannot exist
apart from truth.
Only the Halting Problem gives me the microcosm
to examine these things in a 100% concrete way
with minimal inessential complexity.
Brooks distinguishes between two different types of
complexity: accidental complexity and essential complexity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
It must be that English is not your native language.
It might be easy to prove the halting problem.
I keep telling you that I don't care about this.
Please quit bringing it up.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 146:54:21 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,518 |