Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:19:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <vg2gvo$37lpn$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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> <vfqvjs$3v4c4$15@i2pn2.org>
 <vfr091$1k8im$1@dont-email.me> <vft4or$44tc$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vft9r1$25aio$9@dont-email.me> <vg2ban$37555$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 13:19:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c99c96db3ca54ad7ebeb53cde955872b";
	logging-data="3397431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vR34cZHoI+Bw2zYfSvhKf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mUajrpdxRUoeWDJOmYW7aTwnIOU=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241101-2, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vg2ban$37555$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3132

On 11/1/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-10-30 12:46:25 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> ZFC only resolved Russell's Paradox because it tossed out
>> the incoherent foundation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
>> Naive_set_theory
> 
> Actually Zermelo did it. The F and C are simply minor improvements on
> other aspects of the theory.
> 

Thus establishing the precedent that replacing the foundational
basis of a problem is a valid way to resolve that problem.

Russell's Paradox was resolved by replacing its foundation.
The Halting Problem Proof result <is> resolved by replacing
its foundation.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

This does provide a basis for HHH to reject DDD as non-halting
even if this basis is unconventional. We simply change the
conventional basis. ZFC established the precedent that this
can be done.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer