XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/16/2025 12:55 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > On 16/11/2025 08:49, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >   
   >>> That leaves open to the recipient of your message the possibility that   
   >>> they're merely reading a message from the wrong person. Especially in   
   >>> dead-usenet they can expect it to be true.   
   >>   
   >>> Also, it's /literally/ a mere appeal to received doctrine which is a   
   >>> famous fallacy, one of the famous ones.   
   >>   
   >> Not "received doctrine", but established knowledge.  You don't call it   
   >> "received doctrine" when you rely on the abilities of a car mechanic to   
   >> service your car or a doctor to service you.   
   >   
   >   
   > "established knowledge" is another way to spell "received doctrine".   
   > When you feel the latter is pejorative instead of a direct accurate   
   > description you require the former phrase instead. When you feel the   
   > former is pejorative you require another new phrase. That's how we   
   > recognise a problem is present.   
   >   
   > On the topic of received doctrine, I refer you to your comments on the   
   > journal.   
   >   
   > The most important knowledge and how it is taught must be frequently   
   > tested and you will just have to suffer it to happen without you because   
   > we depend on that happening.   
   >   
      
   Computer science, Math and Logic have foundational   
   assumptions that they take for the infallible word of God.   
   Within those assumptions Computer science, Math and Logic   
   are provably correct.   
      
   ZFC got rid of Russell's Paradox by merely changing   
   the foundation. That is exactly what I am doing for   
   a whole class of undecidable decision problems.   
      
   > --   
   > Tristan Wibberley   
   >   
   > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)