XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15:   
   >> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17:   
   >>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague   
   >>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math   
   >>>>>>>> phobia.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that   
   >>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future   
   >>>>>>> states.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on   
   >>>>> your   
   >>>>> own psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject   
   >>>>>> is closed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Whaaat ...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com   
   >>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H   
   >>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated   
   >>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,   
   >>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is.   
   >>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns,   
   >>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this;   
   >>>>> it is completely uncontroversial.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I really did figure out how to determine the   
   >>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's   
   >>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider.   
   >>>   
   >>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine   
   >>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the   
   >>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting   
   >>> problem.   
   >>   
   >> That is inaccurate.   
   >   
   > No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem   
   > but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations   
   > restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications.   
   >   
      
   It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately   
   self-contradictory specification.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)