XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/23/2026 7:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/23/26 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/23/2026 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/23/26 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/23/2026 10:29 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/23/26 2:19 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/22/2026 11:21 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/22/26 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> It is self-evident that a subset of Turing machines   
   >>>>>>>> can be Turing complete entirely on the basis of the   
   >>>>>>>> meaning of the words.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Every machine that performs the same set of   
   >>>>>>>> finite string transformations on the same inputs   
   >>>>>>>> and produces the same finite string outputs from   
   >>>>>>>> these inputs is equivalent by definition and thus   
   >>>>>>>> redundant in the set of Turing complete computations.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Can we change the subject now?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> no because perhaps isolating out non-paradoxical machine may   
   >>>>>>> prove a turing-complete subset of machines with no decision   
   >>>>>>> paradoxes, removing a core pillar in the undecidability arguments.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> FYI, five LLMs have all agreed that I have conquered that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> but no humans have and that's what actually counts   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *It really does seem to me that I am a human*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Also HHH(DD) Really does correctly detect the   
   >>>> non-well-founded cyclic dependency in the   
   >>>> evaluation graph.   
   >>>   
   >>> Since DD isn't doing a proof or making a declariation of truth, "non-   
   >>> well-founded" is a meaningless term in this context.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Only while you make sure to have no idea what   
   >> this term means:   
   >> "non-well-founded in proof theoretic semantics"   
   >>   
   >   
   > Since proof theoretic semantics insists that only things that can be   
   > proven can be asserted, it needs to be able to PROVE that the statement   
   > is not provable or refutable for it to assert that the input is non-   
   > well-founded.   
   >   
   > Or, are you admitting that you proof theoretics semantics are really   
   > just truth-conditional semantics with a downgrading of Truth to being   
   > probvabilility? (Which isn't what others consider it to be).   
      
   I didn't think this stuff up on my own. I had at   
   least 100 dialogues with five different LLM systems   
   and after much push-back they all agreed that I am   
   correct after 60 pages of dialogue each. I have   
   been working on this every waking moment for weeks.   
      
   It was Copilot that recognized that my system was   
   Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) that resolves to   
   provable / refutable / non-well-founded.   
      
   Every system also agrees that HHH(DD) does   
   correctly reject DD as non-well-founded.   
   I just can't get them to do that concisely yet.   
      
   Once I can get them to actually do the simulation   
   then they immediately see from their own simulation   
   trace that HHH correctly rejects DD as non-well-founded   
   within proof theoretic semantics.   
      
   non-well-founded literally means that the proof   
   itself is stuck in a loop.   
      
   --   
   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)