XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/12/2026 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 11/01/2026 16:24, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >> On 11/01/2026 10:13, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 10/01/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/10/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> No, that does not follow. If a required result cannot be derived by   
   >>>>> appying a finite string transformation then the it it is uncomputable.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Right. Outside the scope of computation. Requiring anything   
   >>>> outside the scope of computation is an incorrect requirement.   
   >>>   
   >>> You can't determine whether the required result is computable before   
   >>> you have the requirement.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Right, it is /in/ scope for computer science... for the /ology/. Olcott   
   >> here uses "computation" to refer to the practice. You give the   
   >> requirement to the /ologist/ who correctly decides that it is not for   
   >> computation because it is not computable.   
   >>   
   >> You two so often violently agree; I find it warming to the heart.   
   >   
   > For pracitcal programming it is useful to know what is known to be   
   > uncomputable in order to avoid wasting time in attemlpts to do the   
   > impossible.   
   >   
      
   It f-cking nuts that after more than 2000 years   
   people still don't understand that self-contradictory   
   expressions: "This sentence is not true" have no   
   truth value. A smart high school student should have   
   figured this out 2000 years ago.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)