XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/14/2026 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 13/01/2026 16:31, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/13/2026 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> The halting problem counter-example input is anchored   
   >> in the Liar Paradox. Proof Theoretic Semantics rejects   
   >> those two and Gödel's incompleteness and a bunch more   
   >> as merely non-well-founded inputs.   
   >   
   > For every Turing machine the halting problem counter-example provably   
   > exists.   
      
   Not when using Proof Theoretic Semantics grounded   
   in the specification language. In this case the   
   pathological input is simply rejected as ungrounded.   
      
   This is the exact same correct resolution of every   
   case of pathological self-reference and forms the   
   basis to fulfill   
      
   My 28 year goal to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   reliably computable.   
      
      
   >  From the existence of the counter-example it is provable that   
   > the first Turing machine is not a halting decider. With universal   
   > quationfication follows that no Turing machine is a halting decider.   
   >   
   > Besides, there are other ways to prove that halting is not Turing   
   > decidable.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)