Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:10:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 307
Message-ID: <v0lvu4$158cq$3@dont-email.me>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <uvs70t$1h01f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvsgcl$2i80k$1@dont-email.me> <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvubo2$34nh3$1@dont-email.me> <uvvsap$3i5q8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v00mf6$3nu0r$1@dont-email.me> <v02gu5$6quf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v038om$bitp$2@dont-email.me> <v05b0k$sivu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v05r5e$vvml$2@dont-email.me> <v05vl4$1165d$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0679k$12sq2$1@dont-email.me> <v07r2j$1h57l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v08gn4$1lpta$2@dont-email.me> <v0ag7u$27jkb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0b8np$2d4ja$1@dont-email.me> <v0c317$2538n$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0c7fn$2k0tc$1@dont-email.me> <v0d3h1$2t938$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0doho$31mkn$2@dont-email.me> <v0forg$3j1dk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0gblt$3nknm$1@dont-email.me> <v0icoj$8qvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0iv76$cu99$2@dont-email.me> <v0l1pl$v0o0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lhs5$12aq4$2@dont-email.me>
 <yCedna-S7dQuwLP7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v0lnkq$13iqu$1@dont-email.me> <v0lota$2g493$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lptb$14579$1@dont-email.me> <v0lsj7$2g493$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 19:10:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="1221018"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qEwD97xTle4VatVnKkXnB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3ajnT+BbQGIeTsRzbC1Z/SLrN2g=
In-Reply-To: <v0lsj7$2g493$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 15277

On 4/28/2024 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/24 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2024 9:31 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/28/2024 06:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-27 13:39:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2024 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-26 13:54:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 00:17:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trusted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device. Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychology but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to construe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========