From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/5/2025 1:23 AM, dart200 wrote:

cause like was i saying before: none of them really had much value to
add to polcott's life anyways, tbh. they were just distracting him from people who actually matter 🤷

really, it was just two sides talking past each other endlessly, none of whom are correct enough to end the debate...

That is an incorrect assessment.
I was correct all along since more than 21 years ago
when I first said this

*The H/D halting problem instance is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox*
My first post on the Halting Problem Jun 6, 2004, 9:11:19 AM
said something similar to this.

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
Jun 6, 2004, 9:11:19 AM https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/V7wzVvx8IMw/m/ggPE6a-60cUJ

I have said this more accurately recently.

The halting problem requires a halt decider H to
correctly report the halting behavior of an input
D that does the opposite of whatever H reports.
This H/D pair (not the halting problem itself) is
isomorphic to the liar paradox.

The liar paradox and this H/D pair are a type of
decision problem instance.

The decision problem of the Liar Paradox is to
determine whether or not an input finite string
has the semantic property of Boolean True.

The decision problem of the Halting Problem is to
determine whether or not an input finite string has
the semantic property of Halting.

*The above tightens the analogy shown below*
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Halting Problem Proof Counter-Example is Isomorphic to the Liar Paradox https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398375553_Halting_Problem_Proof_Counter-Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox

ofc tho, i'm still here 😂😂😂

🤡🌎

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/5/25 8:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/5/2025 1:23 AM, dart200 wrote:

cause like was i saying before: none of them really had much value to
add to polcott's life anyways, tbh. they were just distracting him
from people who actually matter 🤷

really, it was just two sides talking past each other endlessly, none
of whom are correct enough to end the debate...

That is an incorrect assessment.
I was correct all along since more than 21 years ago
when I first said this

idk bro. in my own journey i've gone thru a series of highs and lows of feeling more or less correct and i'm still not entirely sure if i'm
correct ...

i'm just paying my role atm cause what else can i do???

*The H/D halting problem instance is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox*
My first post on the Halting Problem Jun 6, 2004, 9:11:19 AM
said something similar to this.

yeah i agree with that,

but we need to make a change in order to prevent it's expression and the
only change that kinda works is reflection

(unless you purposefully lie about the reflection, which idk what to do
about atm)

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
Jun 6, 2004, 9:11:19 AM https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/V7wzVvx8IMw/m/ggPE6a-60cUJ

I have said this more accurately recently.

The halting problem requires a halt decider H to
correctly report the halting behavior of an input
D that does the opposite of whatever H reports.
This H/D pair (not the halting problem itself) is
isomorphic to the liar paradox.

The liar paradox and this H/D pair are a type of
decision problem instance.

The decision problem of the Liar Paradox is to
determine whether or not an input finite string
has the semantic property of Boolean True.

The decision problem of the Halting Problem is to
determine whether or not an input finite string has
the semantic property of Halting.

*The above tightens the analogy shown below*
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Halting Problem Proof Counter-Example is Isomorphic to the Liar Paradox https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/398375553_Halting_Problem_Proof_Counter- Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox

ofc tho, i'm still here 😂😂😂

🤡🌎

--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/5/2025 12:07 PM, dart200 wrote:

On 12/5/25 8:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/5/2025 1:23 AM, dart200 wrote:

cause like was i saying before: none of them really had much value to
add to polcott's life anyways, tbh. they were just distracting him
from people who actually matter 🤷

really, it was just two sides talking past each other endlessly, none
of whom are correct enough to end the debate...

That is an incorrect assessment.
I was correct all along since more than 21 years ago
when I first said this

idk bro. in my own journey i've gone thru a series of highs and lows of feeling more or less correct and i'm still not entirely sure if i'm
correct ...

That is why I formulated the notion of a semantic tautology.
The meaning of my words proves that they are correct yet
only to people that bother to understand their meaning.

So far out of tens of thousands of reviews by many dozens
of different reviewers across dozens of forums only one
person agreed with one half of one statement.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then

H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

i'm just paying my role atm cause what else can i do???

*The H/D halting problem instance is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox*
My first post on the Halting Problem Jun 6, 2004, 9:11:19 AM
said something similar to this.

yeah i agree with that,

but we need to make a change in order to prevent it's expression and the only change that kinda works is reflection

(unless you purposefully lie about the reflection, which idk what to do about atm)

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
Jun 6, 2004, 9:11:19 AM
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/V7wzVvx8IMw/m/ggPE6a-60cUJ

I have said this more accurately recently.

The halting problem requires a halt decider H to
correctly report the halting behavior of an input
D that does the opposite of whatever H reports.
This H/D pair (not the halting problem itself) is
isomorphic to the liar paradox.

The liar paradox and this H/D pair are a type of
decision problem instance.

The decision problem of the Liar Paradox is to
determine whether or not an input finite string
has the semantic property of Boolean True.

The decision problem of the Halting Problem is to
determine whether or not an input finite string has
the semantic property of Halting.

*The above tightens the analogy shown below*
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Halting Problem Proof Counter-Example is Isomorphic to the Liar Paradox
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398375553_Halting_Problem_Proof_Counter-
Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox

ofc tho, i'm still here 😂😂😂

🤡🌎

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2