Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:40:19 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 11:40:19 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3d815f22c211ba81933ff9202fa284b"; logging-data="3379831"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wyvZ0FglY+GfGDZeIIk1t" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:mCMHHY6nlRw1un8Uxsk9qMTZ5Ew= Bytes: 3958 On 2024-11-01 00:12:37 +0000, olcott said: > 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. A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it. -- Mikko