From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/2/2025 8:56 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 01/12/2025 21:48, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 01/12/2025 19:45, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[...] It's strenuous and sole destroying at the
best of times; [...].

    Ouch!  That's bad for the feet.

I've been (mostly) in for a while, and I've lost nothing.

    Likewise;  and the same applies to several respected posters
who have contributed only occasionally or not at all now for several
years.

But nature abhors a vacuum. If we can't do anything about the
eternal noise, the best way to improve the S/N ratio is to boost the
signal. If we just stop posting, by default the group becomes a
nutjob advocacy group.

    There's no need for people to stop.  The noise is largely because people cannot refrain from replying /instantly/ to everything written.
When an article is several hundred lines /and/ is posted a few minutes
after the post to which it is replying then you /know/ that it contains

Despicable lies by despicable lying bass turds.

nothing of value, but is merely a "'tis, 'tisn't, 'tis, 'tisn't" tit-tor-
tat [and mostly tat].  Take at least half an hour to write an article, and the quality of what you write will improve -- and so will the chance that others will read it.  [This applies to PO as much as to others.]  Limit your posts to 100 lines [50 would be better, and 25 better still] and
again both the quality and the reach will improve.  We might even get some interesting new material.  In any case, five good articles/day in this
group would be a big improvement on 100+ of rubbish.

--
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.theory

On 12/2/2025 10:04 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 02/12/2025 14:56, Andy Walker wrote:

Limit your posts to 100 lines [50 would be better, and 25
better still] and again both the quality and the reach will
improve.

Or at the very least determine to post an article shorter than the one
to which it replies.

Dammit, people, learn to snip!

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

*Proof that HHH correctly rejects HHH*

(a) DD simulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the C programming language

(b) Cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state

(c) While being simulated by HHH

Conclusively proves that behavior that the
input to HHH(DD) specifies is non-halting behavior.

That
(a) Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their [finite string] inputs

(b) To an accept or reject state

(c) On the basis that this [finite string] input specifies
or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic property.

Proves that the halting problem, itself is incorrect
when it requires something else.
--
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.theory

On 12/2/2025 8:56 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 01/12/2025 21:48, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 01/12/2025 19:45, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[...] It's strenuous and sole destroying at the
best of times; [...].

    Ouch!  That's bad for the feet.

I've been (mostly) in for a while, and I've lost nothing.

    Likewise;  and the same applies to several respected posters
who have contributed only occasionally or not at all now for several
years.

But nature abhors a vacuum. If we can't do anything about the
eternal noise, the best way to improve the S/N ratio is to boost the
signal. If we just stop posting, by default the group becomes a
nutjob advocacy group.

    There's no need for people to stop.  The noise is largely because people cannot refrain from replying /instantly/ to everything written.
When an article is several hundred lines /and/ is posted a few minutes
after the post to which it is replying then you /know/ that it contains

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

*Proof that HHH correctly rejects HHH*

(a) DD simulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the C programming language

(b) Cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state

(c) While being simulated by HHH

Conclusively proves that behavior that the
input to HHH(DD) specifies is non-halting behavior.

That
(a) Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their [finite string] inputs

(b) To an accept or reject state

(c) On the basis that this [finite string] input specifies
or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic property.

Proves that the halting problem, itself is incorrect
when it requires something else.
--
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.theory

On 12/1/2025 10:00 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/12/2025 à 16:55, olcott a écrit :

In other words you are asserting that type theory is a lie?

https://lawrencecpaulson.github.io/papers/Russells-mathematical-logic.pdf

My whole 28 year purpose in this is so that people like Trump
cannot get away with their lies when Truth(L,x) becomes
computable.

Adding more lies on top of previous lies, dodging, evading and defaming.

This is not smelling good, maybe some smoke?

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

*Proof that HHH correctly rejects HHH*

(a) DD simulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the C programming language

(b) Cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state

(c) While being simulated by HHH

Conclusively proves that behavior that the
input to HHH(DD) specifies is non-halting behavior.

That
(a) Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their [finite string] inputs

(b) To an accept or reject state

(c) On the basis that this [finite string] input specifies
or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic property.

Proves that the halting problem, itself is incorrect
when it requires something else.
--
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.theory

On 11/30/2025 11:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-12-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/30/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-11-30, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

HHH does correctly report that DD simulated
by HHH (according to the semantics of the C
programming language) does not halt.

(1) It is a fact that this input to HHH(DD) does specify
non-halting behavior according to this definition
that you erased:

An input DD that halts for a simulating termination
analyzer HHH is defined as DD reaching its own simulated
"return" statement while DD is being simulated by HHH.

(2) It is a fact that HHH reports this.

The key most important fact is that the halting
problem *is* a category error because it requires

If you think the problem is a "category error", then ... fucking
stop discussing cases of it, with elaborate claims about
termination behavors.

If it is the case that the whole problem is a category error,
then everything that follows is erroneous and that is that.

a halt decider to report on different behavior
than the actual behavior that its actual input
actually specifies.

If you believe that, then stop trying to make halt deciders
which do that, and then claim they are correct.

This makes everything else that you say below moot
AKA totally beside the point and irrelevant.

But that would only be because it refers to your simulation work
and the claims you have based on it, which under the assumption that
halting is errneous, are all erroneous.

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

*Proof that HHH correctly rejects HHH*

(a) DD simulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the C programming language

(b) Cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state

(c) While being simulated by HHH

Conclusively proves that behavior that the
input to HHH(DD) specifies is non-halting behavior.

That
(a) Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their [finite string] inputs

(b) To an accept or reject state

(c) On the basis that this [finite string] input specifies
or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic property.

Proves that the halting problem, itself is incorrect
when it requires something else.
--
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.theory

On 12/1/2025 11:45 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2025-11-25, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2025-11-14, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:

Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month?

DDDecember is here. HHHappy HHHolidays!

Count me in (or should it be out?). What do I mean? I mean I'll stop
trying to converse with PO. It's strenuous and sole destroying at the
best of times; I doubt I'll be losing much.

Fwiw, iirc, the only way to beat the cruel puppet in beyond zork is to mentally strain... Or use the wand of annihilation, I think. There is a
bug in that game where you can put things under the bear skin rug found
in the tavern.

[...]
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2