Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:27:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2a6a051d8f251ef0d25114ecc482170f7d12d19f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org>
 <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad>
 <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 00:27:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="523710"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5342
Lines: 87

On 10/31/24 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/31/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/31/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
>>>>>>>>> less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
>>>>>>>>> responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>     I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.
>>>>>>> Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a 
>>>>>>> liar
>>>>>>> I may politely pretend to believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
>>>>>> Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He is 
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or 
>>>>>> similar,
>>>>>> but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in 
>>>>>> terms
>>>>>> of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing 
>>>>>> that he
>>>>>> has a unique insight. 
>>>>>
>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
>>>>> the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>>>>>
>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
>>>>> the current received view of the theory of computation
>>>>> is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
>>>>> viewed as incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you 
>>>> might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem 
>>>> because you are working in a new framework?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am admitting one of two things:
>>> (1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
>>> as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
>>> actual input finite string.
>>
>> Which is just a lie, so you are just admitting to not knowing what the 
>> facts are.
>>
> 
> It can't possibly be a lie because I am not even asserting
> it as a truth only a possible truth of two possible truths.

No, the statement is counter factual, so puting it forward as even a 
POSSIBLE source of the problem is just a lie.
> 
>>>
>>> (2) I am resolving the halting problem in a way that is
>>> comparable to the way that ZFC resolved Russell's Paradox.
>>> Establishing the foundation that the decider must report on
>>> the behavior of its own simulation of its input to compute
>>> the mapping from this input to its behavior.
>>
>> Nope, just shows you don't understand what Z-F did, or what the 
>> problem you are trying to solve is.
>>
> 
> *Comparable to* does not mean exactly the same in every single detail.
> ZFC resolved RP by changing the foundations of set theory. The HP
> can be equally resolved by changing the foundations of computation.
> These two are exactly the same in that they *change the foundations*

No, it needed to do a lot more than that, which just shows how little 
you understand about logic.

> 
>> You are just proving you don't know what you are talking about.
>>
> 
> No I am proving that you don't know what I am talking about.
> The philosophy of computation never takes any received view
> as inherently infallible. It examines alternative possible
> views to see where they lead.
> 

No, you are proving that what you are talking about is devoid of 
meaning, so is meaningless.