XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 12/19/25 7:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/19/25 3:25 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>   
   >> actually his claim is that computing the halting property is an   
   >> invalid expectation (which kind of actually agrees with ur position,   
   >> just with different words). and is a bit retarded in it's own sense,   
   >> but the fact u don't know that after engaging with him for what?   
   >> decades ...?   
   >   
   > No, they are very different.   
   >   
   > a-priori, we can have a reasonable expectation that asking about the   
   > halting behavior of a machine is a reasonable thing. Every machine has a   
   > definite such behavior that is fully determined by the machine.   
   >   
   > We know we have a way to express a machine fully to a computation   
   > engine, as we can show that we can make such a representation that   
   > another computation can use to recreate that original behavior.   
   >   
   > Those are all the base requirements to be a valid question.   
   >   
   > What happens, is it turns out the computational environment is powerful   
   > enough that the machines it can generate can grow in complexity faster   
   > than the power to analyze them. Thus, it turns out that there are many   
   > properties of the machines that are just not "Computable".   
   >   
   > That doesn't make such question "invalid", just not answerable.   
   >   
   > Just like in powerful enough logic systems, there exist statements that   
   > are actually True, but can never be proven in the system, or even   
   > knowable at all.   
   >   
   > This comes out of the properties of the infinite, and that we are finite   
   > beings.   
   >   
   > Olcott just can't understand the infinite, and his logic is   
   > fundamentally limited to system that can't create infinity. He   
   > fundamentally can't understand the concepts that create such infinities,   
   > and thus he is imprisoned by his finite thinking.   
   >   
   > YOU make similar errors because like him, you refuse to learn the actual   
   > basics and insist on false concepts.   
      
   no idea what ur trying to say tbh, it seems like mostly semantic   
   quibbling that's more perspective that fact   
      
   as far i'm concerned u two mostly agree but can't figure out how to   
   agree on on the fact u agere,   
      
   and that's how retarded ur discourse with him is   
      
   i'd say grow up, but idk if ur capable anymore grandpas   
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)