XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 12/01/2026 16:32, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/12/2026 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 11/01/2026 16:24, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 11/01/2026 10:13, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/01/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/10/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> No, that does not follow. If a required result cannot be derived by   
   >>>>>> appying a finite string transformation then the it it is   
   >>>>>> uncomputable.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Right. Outside the scope of computation. Requiring anything   
   >>>>> outside the scope of computation is an incorrect requirement.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You can't determine whether the required result is computable before   
   >>>> you have the requirement.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Right, it is /in/ scope for computer science... for the /ology/. Olcott   
   >>> here uses "computation" to refer to the practice. You give the   
   >>> requirement to the /ologist/ who correctly decides that it is not for   
   >>> computation because it is not computable.   
   >>>   
   >>> You two so often violently agree; I find it warming to the heart.   
   >>   
   >> For pracitcal programming it is useful to know what is known to be   
   >> uncomputable in order to avoid wasting time in attemlpts to do the   
   >> impossible.   
   >   
   > It f-cking nuts that after more than 2000 years   
   > people still don't understand that self-contradictory   
   > expressions: "This sentence is not true" have no   
   > truth value. A smart high school student should have   
   > figured this out 2000 years ago.   
      
   Irrelevant. For practical programming that question needn't be answered.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)