XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: 046-301-5902@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/28/2025 8:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 5/25/2021 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> In Message ID , Peter   
   >>>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and   
   that   
   >>>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"   
   >>>> analysis.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere   
   else.   
   >>>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what   
   I   
   >>>> PO: am saying is incorrect.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every   
   >>>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those   
   >>>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.   
   >>>   
   >>> *Kaz cannot think outside the box*   
   >>   
   >> Nope; I don't want to think outside of the correctness box,   
   >> if I can help it. Only by accident.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yet you define the correctness box by conformity to   
   > the preconceived notions of others.   
      
   You're one of the others from where I'm standing.   
      
   You're one of those others who just say, "don't critically   
   examine what I say, just accept it".   
      
   So, no, I don't take preconceived notions from /such/ others, sorry;   
   I'm picky about my others.   
      
   Sometimes others put together a coherent set of assumptions.   
   Then within those assumptions they work out a result.   
      
   No, I can't refute their /reasoning/ by choosing other assumptions.   
      
   Your modus operandi is to reject (or, more usually, fundamentally   
   misunderstand) the assumptions and then call the reasoning wrong since   
   it doesn't follow from your distorted or replaced version of the   
   assumptions.   
      
   >> The box where I exactly understand the definition of the problem   
   >> and all of its constraints, so that I'm addressing myself to the   
   >> problem and not something sort of resembling it, and the box in which   
   >> I avoid magical/wishful thinking.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yet only within the conventional analytical framework,   
   > viewing alternative ways of looking at the same things   
   > as inherently erroneous.   
      
   Using the same same name for two different entities, in the same   
   argument, while pretending they are one entity, is not a "usefully   
   unconventional" mode of operating. So no, I cannot adopt that from you.   
      
   > If there was such a thing as philosophy of computation   
   > I would be welcomed there for reframing the foundations   
   > of the theory of computation to get rid of the inherent   
   > incoherence that no one else bothers to notice.   
      
   Even if that somehow were achieved, you would only be choosing   
   different assumptions from which to work, and not challenging   
   any results based on their respective assumptions.   
      
   (And at that leve, you would /know/ this and refrain from   
   insisting that results in a framework of different assumptions   
   were wrongly reasoned because you like some other assumptions.)   
      
      
   >> Not an example of diagonalization; the Liar Paradox is not   
   >> a diagonal argument.   
   >>   
   >   
   > It does one and for all prove that the Liar Paradox   
   > is not a proposition. This has never been done before.   
   >   
   >> Diagonal arguemnts patterned after Cantor do not exhibit   
   >> a problem that is analogous to the Liar Paradox.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The Liar Paradox constructed with diagonalization L ⊣⊢ ¬Tr(┌L┐)   
   > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/#ExisLiarLikeSent   
      
   Category inversion problem. Diagonalization may construct a Liar   
   paradox, but that doesn't mean everything made with diagonalization   
   is a Liar Paradox.   
      
   The ordinary Liar Paradox sentence is not constructed of   
   two parts; it deosn't use quoting where it turns out that   
   the quoted part it is talking about is identical to itself.   
      
   The paper you reference makes it clear that this is a required   
   ingredient.  You can't just use the pronoun "this sentence"; that's a   
   self-reference, but not acheived via diagonalization.   
      
   ...   
      
   Oops, there I go, doing all the work again, while you can't fire   
   two brain cells together beyond formulating something casually   
   dismissive.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)