XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/26/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-09-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a convincing   
   >>> argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp Sci PhDs who've studied   
   >>> the Halting Problem (for the 10 minutes it takes to drink a cup of   
   >>> coffee while they run the proof through their minds) and who have no   
   >>> problem with it whatsoever.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say   
   >> without looking at a single word because majority   
   >> consensus have never been shown to be less than   
   >> totally infallible.   
   >   
   > Consensus in mathematics /is/ pretty much infallible.   
   >   
      
   That is like pretty much sterile.   
   Generally very reliable seems apt.   
      
   Math and logic people will hold to views that   
   are philosophically primarily because they view   
   knowledge in their field to be pretty much infallible.   
      
   > Mathematicians are a very careful bunch; they generally know when they   
   > have a conjecture and when they have a proved theorem.   
   >   
      
   Probably much more than other fields.   
      
   > Some of their proofs go for hundreds of pages. Peer reviews of such   
   > proofs are able to find flaws.   
   >   
   > You are not going to find a flaw in a massively accepted, old result   
   > that, in in most succinct presentations, takes about a page.   
   >   
      
   *The conventional halting problem question is this*   
   Does there exist a single halt decider that   
   can correctly report the halt status of the   
   behavior of a directly executed machine on   
   the basis of this machine's machine description.   
      
   *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*   
   What correct halt status value can be returned   
   when the input to a halt decider actually does   
   the opposite of whatever value is returned?   
      
   These above conventional views are proven.   
      
   To see that they are philosophically unsound:   
   On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   [The halting problem proof question is incorrect]   
      
   > You might as well look for a dry spot on a T-shirt that was loaded   
   > with rocks and is sitting at the bottom of the ocean.   
   >   
   >> The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between   
   >> changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost   
   >> everyone gets busy with the proof.”   
   >   
   > That's a thought-terminating cliche, just like, oh, the idea that the   
   > more someone protests an accusation, the more guilty he must be.   
   > As if someone innocent would not protest?   
   >   
      
   That is however a very apt characterization of human nature.   
      
   > Are you saying that the concensus is /never/ right? Everyone   
   > who-so-ever has a contrary opinion to a mathematical consensus is right?   
   > Merely the possession of a contrary opinion is evidence of having   
   > outwitted everyone?   
   >   
      
   Within math, logic and computer science one can know   
   the truth entirely on the basis of the meaning of   
   expressions of language on the basis of semantic   
   logical entailment.   
      
   The big mistake of logic is that it does not retain   
   semantics as fully integrated into its formal expressions.   
   That is how we get nutty things like the Principle of Explosion.   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion   
      
   >> What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would   
   >   
   > You've not presented any facts, see.   
      
   I have presented expressions that are verified much   
   more strongly then mere facts. They are proven completely   
   true entirely on the basis of their meaning. That no one   
   want to bother to understand the meaning of these   
   expressions is the dishonest aspect of their dishonest   
   dialogue.   
      
   > And your approach to a problem   
   > in logic is to try to redefine it in some handwavy "extralogical" way   
   > and then simply insist that anyone having to do with the original   
   > problem should drop that and make the replacement one their agenda.   
   >   
   > You are not able to earnestly engage with the subject matter in its   
   > proper form.   
   >   
      
   See this post to get a more accurate view of this:   
   On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   [The halting problem proof question is incorrect]   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)