XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 11/25/2025 9:58 PM, Python wrote:   
   >> BTW you should think about what Ben Bacarisse once wrote:   
   >>   
   >> The set of all functions from ℕ to ℕ is uncountable (as large as the   
   >> real numbers), while the set of all finite programs is only countable,   
   >> so there are far more possible functions than there are programs to   
   >> compute them; this guarantees that most functions are uncomputable   
   >> and, more generally, that no finite formal system or algorithmic   
   >> procedure can cover “all” functions, all truths, or all behaviors   
   >> describable over the naturals—so whenever someone claims to have a   
   >> universal decider, a complete semantic engine, or a single system that   
   >> captures all “objects of thought,” they are implicitly pretending that   
   >> countably many programs can represent uncountably many functions,   
   >> which is mathematically impossible.   
   >>   
   >> The "halting problem" is actually only a way to confirm this with a   
   >> specific case.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > The entire body of atomic facts of the world   
   > is a finite set that can be syntactically   
   > formalized as Rudolf Carnap Meaning Postulates.   
      
   Moron. Let me guess you would hard code it to where PO = a God, a   
   demigod, a kind of god, god like?   
      
      
   >   
   > Every verbalized thought than anyone has ever   
   > had or ever will have before the dying Sun   
   > consumes the Earth is also a finite set.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)