XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/29/2025 4:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/29/2025 3:53 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/29/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/28/2025 11:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> I have shown that the original assumptions are   
   >>>>>>>> incoherent just like   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You have not. Only that your understanding is incoherent.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The halting problem instance is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, it isn't.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You're not even smart enough to keep straight in your head   
   >>>>> what is part of the /problem/ and what is a /result/   
   >>>>> of investigating the problem.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The Halting Problem is literally a sentence of the form: "can   
   >>>>> a Turing machine calculate whether any Turing Machine halts".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When the halting problem instance defines and input   
   >>>> that does the opposite of whatever its decider reports   
   >>>> this is structurally the same as the set of sentences   
   >>>> that are true only when they are false and false only   
   >>>> when they are true.   
   >>>   
   >>> Only in the mind of an imbecile who can't think outside of the box.   
   >>   
   >> Fuckheads that don't have reasoning prove   
   >> that they are mere fuckheads by using insults   
   >> instead.   
   >   
   > The above is a thoroughly evidence-based observation.   
   >   
   > I also have solid aguments why self-reference in halting proofs is   
   > different from Liar Paradox sentences.   
   >   
      
   No you fucking don't or you would have provided   
   it years ago. I you or anyone else here has on   
   Gödel is bluster and presumption.   
      
   I spent years creating Olcott's Minimal   
   Type Theory to say this: G := (F ⊬ G)   
   G says of itself that it is unprovable in F.   
      
      
   --   
   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)