Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: 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: 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.