XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/24/2026 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/23/26 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Just because you can handle SOME problems, doesn't mean you can find an   
   > answer for ALL problems.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But there isn't always a cycle in the graph, sometimes the graph is just   
   > infinitely deep.   
   >   
   > But, I guess thinking about infinity is something your brain can't handle.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Get AI to explain well-founded proof theoretic   
   >> semantics to you and ask it for references that   
   >> you can verify.   
   >   
   > Why should I ask an AI liar, when I can get it from a lying human.   
   >   
      
   We will not be able to have a productive   
   conversation until you learn more about   
   proof theory. I will look for some good   
   references.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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)