XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/23/2026 7:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/23/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > In other words you are working with the counsel of admitted liars, whose   
   > terms of use include that you acknoldege their results may not be accurate.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nope, non-well-founded means that there is no proof.   
   >   
   > "Proofs" don't get stuck in a loop, as it isn't a proof until it is   
   > complete.   
   >   
      
   You simply don't know enough about logic programming.   
   Logic programming routinely proves that an input does   
   not have a well-founded proof.   
      
   When I explain the details in terms of cycles in   
   directed graphs you don't have a clue. This has   
   always been anchored in well-founded proof theoretic   
   semantics.   
      
   Get AI to explain well-founded proof theoretic   
   semantics to you and ask it for references that   
   you can verify.   
      
   > THe fact that ONE attempted method of proving doesn't result in getting   
   > to the answer doesn't mean that some other method doesn't work   
   >   
   > All you are doing is showing that you are just ignorant of what you are   
   > talking about, and you admit that you are trusting programs known to lie   
   > and give false results, and are even admittedly programmed to try to   
   > give good sounding results over factually accurate results.   
      
      
   --   
   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)