When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we have
systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in language.
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we have
systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we have
systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
The language of such a formal system is an extended form of the Montague Grammar of natural language semantics. I came up with this mostly in the
last two years. I have been working on it for 22 years.
The Montague Grammar Rudolf Carnap Meaning postulates are organized in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ontology_(information_science)
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and allow
semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we have
systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
The language of such a formal system is an extended form of the
Montague Grammar of natural language semantics. I came up with this
mostly in the last two years. I have been working on it for 22 years.
The Montague Grammar Rudolf Carnap Meaning postulates are organized in
a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ontology_(information_science)
And the problem is that either your claim is wrong, or your logic system
is just shown to be too small to be useful for many of the things we
want to be able to do because it can't support the mathematics of
Natural Numbers.
You don't seem to understand that all the properties you don't like
about Logic Systems are all conditioned on the ability for the system to
have a certain level of power in their ability to do logic. "Tpy"
systems that have been limited below that level will not experiance the problems, but also are too weak to do the problems we typically want to
do with logic.
This ultimate shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what you are
talking about, especially your inability to handle abstractions, and
things that can create "infinities".
On Mon, 05 May 2025 07:04:15 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
This ultimate shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what you are
talking about, especially your inability to handle abstractions, and
things that can create "infinities".
You are fucking clueless about mathematics it seems: it is not possible to create infinites using the mathematics of natural numbers (clue: division
by zero is undefined and infinity is not a number).
On 05/05/2025 15:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2025 07:04:15 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
<snip>
This ultimate shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what you are
talking about, especially your inability to handle abstractions, and
things that can create "infinities".
You are fucking clueless about mathematics it seems: it is not possible
to create infinites using the mathematics of natural numbers (clue:
division by zero is undefined and infinity is not a number).
How many integers are there?
On 5/5/2025 5:47 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and allow
semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we have
systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?
Counter-examples to my claim seem to be categorically impossible.
That you could not find one seems to prove my point.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On Mon, 05 May 2025 16:51:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 05/05/2025 15:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2025 07:04:15 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
<snip>
This ultimate shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what you are
talking about, especially your inability to handle abstractions, and
things that can create "infinities".
You are fucking clueless about mathematics it seems: it is not possible
to create infinites using the mathematics of natural numbers (clue:
division by zero is undefined and infinity is not a number).
How many integers are there?
Irrelevent
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 5:47 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and allow >>>>> semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we have
systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?
Counter-examples to my claim seem to be categorically impossible.
Arrogantly wrong in the extreme.
That you could not find one seems to prove my point.
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and
apply them to your "system". That will give you your counter example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and >>>> apply them to your "system". That will give you your counter example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If it's a
formal system with anything above minimal capabilities, Gödel's Theorem
applies to it, and the "system" will be incomplete (in Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 5/5/2025 1:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and >>>>>> apply them to your "system". That will give you your counter example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If it's a >>>> formal system with anything above minimal capabilities, Gödel's Theorem >>>> applies to it, and the "system" will be incomplete (in Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
Liar. That is impossible.
[ Irrelevant nonsense snipped. ]
When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then you necessarily end up with truth.
Is that too difficult for you?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 5/5/2025 2:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 1:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness
Theorem, and apply them to your "system". That will give you
your counter example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If
it's a formal system with anything above minimal capabilities,
Gödel's Theorem applies to it, and the "system" will be incomplete >>>>>> (in Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
Liar. That is impossible.
[ Irrelevant nonsense snipped. ]
When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then you necessarily end up with truth.
Is that too difficult for you?
Not at all. One of the truths you inescapably end up with is Gödel's
Theorem. Either that, or the system is self-contradictory or too weak
to do anything at all.
Gödel's theorem cannot possibly be recreated when
True(x) is defined to apply truth preserving
operations to basic facts.
That would appear to be well beyond your level of understanding. You
ought to show some respect towards those who do understand these things.
I have spent 22 years focusing on pathological self-reference.
My understanding really is deeper.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On Mon, 05 May 2025 07:04:15 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and allow
semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we have
systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
The language of such a formal system is an extended form of the
Montague Grammar of natural language semantics. I came up with this
mostly in the last two years. I have been working on it for 22 years.
The Montague Grammar Rudolf Carnap Meaning postulates are organized in
a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ontology_(information_science)
And the problem is that either your claim is wrong, or your logic system
is just shown to be too small to be useful for many of the things we
want to be able to do because it can't support the mathematics of
Natural Numbers.
You don't seem to understand that all the properties you don't like
about Logic Systems are all conditioned on the ability for the system to
have a certain level of power in their ability to do logic. "Tpy"
systems that have been limited below that level will not experiance the
problems, but also are too weak to do the problems we typically want to
do with logic.
This ultimate shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what you are
talking about, especially your inability to handle abstractions, and
things that can create "infinities".
You are fucking clueless about mathematics it seems: it is not possible to create infinites using the mathematics of natural numbers (clue: division
by zero is undefined and infinity is not a number).
/Flibble
On 5/5/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and
allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we
have systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in
language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
It seems to me that the inferences steps that could
otherwise create undecidability cannot exist in the
system that I propose.'
For example: "This sentence is not true" cannot be
derived by applying semantic logical entailment to
basic facts. It is rejected as semantically unsound
on this basis.
Try to show any complete concrete example using
a system of basic facts and applying semantic logical
entailment where undecidability can be derived.
The language of such a formal system is an extended form of the
Montague Grammar of natural language semantics. I came up with this
mostly in the last two years. I have been working on it for 22 years.
The Montague Grammar Rudolf Carnap Meaning postulates are organized
in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. https://
en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Ontology_(information_science)
And the problem is that either your claim is wrong, or your logic
system is just shown to be too small to be useful for many of the
things we want to be able to do because it can't support the
mathematics of Natural Numbers.
It can say anything that can be said. It is the complete set
of all general knowledge that can be expressed in language.
You don't seem to understand that all the properties you don't like
about Logic Systems are all conditioned on the ability for the system
to have a certain level of power in their ability to do logic.
Semantic logical entailment is rich enough to say anything
that can be said.
"Tpy" systems that have been limited below that level will not
experiance the problems, but also are too weak to do the problems we
typically want to do with logic.
This ultimate shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what you are
talking about, especially your inability to handle abstractions, and
things that can create "infinities".
On 5/5/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and
allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we
have systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in
language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
It seems to me that the inferences steps that could
otherwise create undecidability cannot exist in the
system that I propose.
The mathematics of natural numbers (as I have already explained)
begins with basic facts about natural numbers and only applies
truth preserving operations to these basic facts.
When we begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then WE NECESSARILY MUST END UP WITH TRUTH.
When we ALWAYS end up with TRUTH then we NEVER end up with UNDECIDABILITY.
Its not that hard, iff you pay enough attention.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 5/5/2025 3:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 2:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 1:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness >>>>>>>>>> Theorem, and apply them to your "system". That will give you >>>>>>>>>> your counter example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If >>>>>>>> it's a formal system with anything above minimal capabilities, >>>>>>>> Gödel's Theorem applies to it, and the "system" will be incomplete >>>>>>>> (in Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
Liar. That is impossible.
[ Irrelevant nonsense snipped. ]
When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then you necessarily end up with truth.
Is that too difficult for you?
Not at all. One of the truths you inescapably end up with is Gödel's >>>> Theorem. Either that, or the system is self-contradictory or too weak >>>> to do anything at all.
Gödel's theorem cannot possibly be recreated when
True(x) is defined to apply truth preserving
operations to basic facts.
On the contrary, whether or not True(x) can be so defined, Gödel's
theorem cannot be avoided.
[ .... ]
That would appear to be well beyond your level of understanding. You
ought to show some respect towards those who do understand these things.
I have spent 22 years focusing on pathological self-reference.
My understanding really is deeper.
It might be a little deeper than it was, but that's not saying very much.
The concept of proof by contradiction, for example, is way beyond you.
Even the very idea of a mathematical proof, its status, its significance
is beyond you. You don't even understand what it is you're lacking.
Those 22 years have been suboptimally spent.
As I said, you ought to show a bit of respect to those who understand
these mathematical things.
So you don't understand that when True(x) is
defined to only apply truth preserving operations
to basic facts that are stipulated to be true
that every input including random gibberish
and self-contradiction IS DECIDABLE AS TRUE OR ~TRUE.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 5/5/2025 1:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Truth such as Gödel's undecidability theorem, but not all truths.
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, >>>>>> and apply them to your "system". That will give you your counter
example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If it's
a formal system with anything above minimal capabilities, Gödel's
Theorem applies to it, and the "system" will be incomplete (in
Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
Liar. That is impossible.
then you necessarily end up with truth.
On 5/5/2025 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/5/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and
allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we
have systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in
language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
It seems to me that the inferences steps that could
otherwise create undecidability cannot exist in the
system that I propose.'
Only because it seems to create a trivially small system.
When I told you that the system comprises the entire
set of all general knowledge that can be expressed in
language many many times, you must have a mental defect
to to think that this system is very small.
For example: "This sentence is not true" cannot be
derived by applying semantic logical entailment to
basic facts. It is rejected as semantically unsound
on this basis.
So?
Try to show any complete concrete example using
a system of basic facts and applying semantic logical
entailment where undecidability can be derived.
That isn't what I said. I said that you system, to be decidable,
couldn't include the mathematics of the Natural Numbers.
It does includes the mathematics of natural numbers
expressed as basic facts and truth preserving
operations applied to these basic facts.
When you start with truth and only apply truth
preserving operations you necessarily only end
up with truth. This means that you NEVER end
up with any undecidability.
The Liar Paradox: "this sentence is not true"
is rejected as untrue because it cannot be derived
by applying only truth preserving operations to
basic facts.
On 5/5/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and
allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we
have systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in
language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
It seems to me that the inferences steps that could
otherwise create undecidability cannot exist in the
system that I propose.
The mathematics of natural numbers (as I have already explained)
begins with basic facts about natural numbers and only applies
truth preserving operations to these basic facts.
When we begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then WE NECESSARILY MUST END UP WITH TRUTH.
When we ALWAYS end up with TRUTH then we NEVER end up with UNDECIDABILITY.
Its not that hard, iff you pay enough attention.
On 5/6/2025 3:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When we begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then WE NECESSARILY MUST END UP WITH TRUTH.
You will necessarily end up with only a subset of truth, no matter how
shouty you are in writing it. You'll also end up with undecidability,
no matter how hard you try to pretend it isn't there.
When we ALWAYS end up with TRUTH then we NEVER end up with
UNDECIDABILITY.
Shut your eyes, and you won't see it.
Try to provide one simple concrete example where we begin with truth
and only apply truth preserving operations and end up with
undecidability.
With the Tarski Undefinability theorem Tarski began with a falsehood.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
These aren't particularly difficult things to comprehend. As I keep
saying, you ought to show a lot more respect for people who are mathematically educated.
On 5/6/2025 3:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 3:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 2:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 1:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>> Theorem, and apply them to your "system". That will give you >>>>>>>>>>>> your counter example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably >>>>>>>>>>> true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If >>>>>>>>>> it's a formal system with anything above minimal capabilities, >>>>>>>>>> Gödel's Theorem applies to it, and the "system" will be
incomplete
(in Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
Liar. That is impossible.
[ Irrelevant nonsense snipped. ]
When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then you necessarily end up with truth.
Is that too difficult for you?
Not at all. One of the truths you inescapably end up with is Gödel's >>>>>> Theorem. Either that, or the system is self-contradictory or too >>>>>> weak
to do anything at all.
Gödel's theorem cannot possibly be recreated when
True(x) is defined to apply truth preserving
operations to basic facts.
On the contrary, whether or not True(x) can be so defined, Gödel's
theorem cannot be avoided.
[ .... ]
That would appear to be well beyond your level of understanding. You >>>>>> ought to show some respect towards those who do understand these
things.
I have spent 22 years focusing on pathological self-reference.
My understanding really is deeper.
It might be a little deeper than it was, but that's not saying very
much.
The concept of proof by contradiction, for example, is way beyond you. >>>> Even the very idea of a mathematical proof, its status, its
significance
is beyond you. You don't even understand what it is you're lacking.
Those 22 years have been suboptimally spent.
As I said, you ought to show a bit of respect to those who understand
these mathematical things.
So you don't understand that when True(x) is
defined to only apply truth preserving operations
to basic facts that are stipulated to be true
that every input including random gibberish
and self-contradiction IS DECIDABLE AS TRUE OR ~TRUE.
That's like being challenged by a young child to understand some detail
of his newest fantasy. Except you're not a child, and ought to have an
adult's sense of proportion and reality, and a sense of your own
limitations. You're lacking these.
In other words you cannot possibly point out any actual mistake
because what I said is proven completely true entirely on the
basis of the meaning of its words.
When starting with truth and ONLY truth preserving operations
are applied ONLY truth (not undecidability) is derived.
If I was wrong then you could provide a counter-example.
Because I am correct no valid counter-example exists.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 5/6/2025 5:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 05 May 2025 14:22:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/5/2025 1:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Truth such as Gödel's undecidability theorem, but not all truths.
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, >>>>>>>> and apply them to your "system". That will give you your counter >>>>>>>> example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If it's >>>>>> a formal system with anything above minimal capabilities, Gödel's >>>>>> Theorem applies to it, and the "system" will be incomplete (in
Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
Liar. That is impossible.
then you necessarily end up with truth.
The entire body of all general knowledge that can be
expressed using language is included in the system
that I propose.
Undecidability cannot possibly occur in any system
that ONLY derives True(x) by applying truth preserving
operations to basic facts that are stipulated to be true.
LP = "This sentence is not true."
True(LP) == FALSE
True(~LP) == FALSE
Proves that LP is not a valid proposition with a truth value.
On 5/6/2025 3:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and
allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we >>>>>> have systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in
language.
Including the existence of undecidable statements. That is a truth in
_any_ logical system bar the simplest or inconsistent ones.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
It seems to me that the inferences steps that could
otherwise create undecidability cannot exist in the
system that I propose.
The mathematics of natural numbers (as I have already explained)
begins with basic facts about natural numbers and only applies
truth preserving operations to these basic facts.
When we begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then WE NECESSARILY MUST END UP WITH TRUTH.
You will necessarily end up with only a subset of truth, no matter how
shouty you are in writing it. You'll also end up with undecidability, no >> matter how hard you try to pretend it isn't there.
When we ALWAYS end up with TRUTH then we NEVER end up with
UNDECIDABILITY.
Shut your eyes, and you won't see it.
Try to provide one simple concrete example where we
begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations and end up with undecidability.
With the Tarski Undefinability theorem Tarski
began with a falsehood.
Tarski's Liar Paradox from page 248
  It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar
  in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence
  x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
  with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
  https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
Formalized as:
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
Its not that hard, iff you pay enough attention.
It's too hard for you. As I've already suggested in another post, you'd
do better to show some respect to those who understand the matters you're
dabbling in. Accept that your level of understanding is not particularly >> high, and _learn_ from these other people.
That is factually incorrect. If you would pay much
better attention you would see this.
My simulating termination analyzer DOES correctly
determine the halt status of the Halting Problem's
counter-example input.
That you don't understand this does not make you
more knowledgeable than me.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 5/6/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/25 12:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and
allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we >>>>>> have systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in
language.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
It seems to me that the inferences steps that could
otherwise create undecidability cannot exist in the
system that I propose.
The mathematics of natural numbers (as I have already explained)
begins with basic facts about natural numbers and only applies
truth preserving operations to these basic facts.
When we begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then WE NECESSARILY MUST END UP WITH TRUTH.
When we ALWAYS end up with TRUTH then we NEVER end up with
UNDECIDABILITY.
Its not that hard, iff you pay enough attention.
But we do, because decidability requires finite steps to get the
answer, but Trurh can come from an infinite number of steps.
True(x) accepts any x that can be derived by applying truth
preserving operations to the set of Basic Facts that comprise
the entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language and rejects everything else.
True(x) is really Known_to_be_True(x).
True(~x) is really Known_to_be_False(x).
It cannot have any undecidability its is membership
algorithm for the set of all general knowledge that
can be expressed using language.
On 5/6/2025 3:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
When we define formal systems as a finite list of basic facts and
allow semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference we >>>>>> have systems that can express any truth that can be expressed in
language.
Including the existence of undecidable statements. That is a truth in
_any_ logical system bar the simplest or inconsistent ones.
Also with such systems Undecidability is impossible. The only
incompleteness are things that are unknown or unknowable.
Can such a system include the mathematics of the natural numbers?
If so, your claim is false, as that is enough to create that
undeciability.
It seems to me that the inferences steps that could
otherwise create undecidability cannot exist in the
system that I propose.
The mathematics of natural numbers (as I have already explained)
begins with basic facts about natural numbers and only applies
truth preserving operations to these basic facts.
When we begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then WE NECESSARILY MUST END UP WITH TRUTH.
You will necessarily end up with only a subset of truth, no matter how
shouty you are in writing it. You'll also end up with undecidability, no
matter how hard you try to pretend it isn't there.
When we ALWAYS end up with TRUTH then we NEVER end up with UNDECIDABILITY. >>Shut your eyes, and you won't see it.
Try to provide one simple concrete example where we
begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations and end up with undecidability.
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:[ some words ]
As I keep saying, you ought to show a lot more respect for people who
are mathematically educated.
On 5/6/2025 5:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 05 May 2025 14:22:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/5/2025 1:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Truth such as Gödel's undecidability theorem, but not all truths.
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
On 5/5/2025 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2025 11:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Follow the details of the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, >>>>>>>> and apply them to your "system". That will give you your counter >>>>>>>> example.
My system does not do "provable" instead it does "provably true".
I don't know anything about your "system" and I don't care. If it's >>>>>> a formal system with anything above minimal capabilities, Gödel's >>>>>> Theorem applies to it, and the "system" will be incomplete (in
Gödel's sense).
I reformulate the entire notion of "formal system"
so that undecidability ceases to be possible.
Liar. That is impossible.
then you necessarily end up with truth.
The entire body of all general knowledge that can be
expressed using language is included in the system
that I propose.
Try to provide one simple concrete example where we
begin with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations and end up with undecidability.
On 2025-05-06 15:38:36 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:Â [ some words ]
As I keep saying, you ought to show a lot more respect for
people who
are mathematically educated.
One of the priviledges of fools is that they need not show respect
for anybody or anything.
Having been on the receiving end of lengthy Usenet diatribes by cranks in
my own field, I don't hold out much hope for our current culprits
developing either the capacity for clear thought or any measure of respect for expertise any time soon.
Nor do I believe they are capable of understanding proof by contradiction, which is just about the easiest kind of proof there is. In fact, the most surprising aspect of this whole affair is that (according to Mike)
Mr
Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in the proof
published by Dr Linz. How can he get that and not get contradiction? Proof
by contradiction is /much/ easier.
Let us say we have a hypothesis X. If it is false, we might prove its
falsity in any number of 'positive' ways. But proof by contradiction takes
a different track.
We begin by assuming that X is true.
Then we show that IF X is true, it necessarily entails Y, where Y is self-evidently a load of bollocks. From this we deduce that X is false.
That's all there is to it.
In the present case, X is the proposition that a computer can answer any question that we can present to it.
Turing constructed the Halting Problem to illustrate that IF X were true it would necessarily be false - a contradiction. Conclusion: X is bollocks.
The proof couldn't be simpler. If Messrs Flibble and Olcott don't
understand it by now, they never will.
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
...
Having been on the receiving end of lengthy Usenet diatribes by cranks in
my own field, I don't hold out much hope for our current culprits
developing either the capacity for clear thought or any measure of respect >> for expertise any time soon.
Nor do I believe they are capable of understanding proof by contradiction, >> which is just about the easiest kind of proof there is. In fact, the most
surprising aspect of this whole affair is that (according to Mike)
It was me, but Mike may well have pointed it out recently.
Mr
Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in the proof
published by Dr Linz. How can he get that and not get contradiction? Proof >> by contradiction is /much/ easier.
Let us say we have a hypothesis X. If it is false, we might prove its
falsity in any number of 'positive' ways. But proof by contradiction takes >> a different track.
We begin by assuming that X is true.
Then we show that IF X is true, it necessarily entails Y, where Y is
self-evidently a load of bollocks. From this we deduce that X is false.
That's all there is to it.
As I am sure you know, that it not all there is to it,
but I digress...
In the present case, X is the proposition that a computer can answer any
question that we can present to it.
That's way too vague!!
There exists a TM, H, that computes h(n, i).
On 07/05/2025 17:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
...
Having been on the receiving end of lengthy Usenet diatribes by cranks
in my own field, I don't hold out much hope for our current culprits
developing either the capacity for clear thought or any measure of
respect for expertise any time soon.
Nor do I believe they are capable of understanding proof by
contradiction,
which is just about the easiest kind of proof there is. In fact, the
most surprising aspect of this whole affair is that (according to
Mike)
It was me, but Mike may well have pointed it out recently.
He has (and I'll bet he credited you and I forgot; sorry).
Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in the proof
published by Dr Linz. How can he get that and not get contradiction?
Proof by contradiction is /much/ easier.
Let us say we have a hypothesis X. If it is false, we might prove its
falsity in any number of 'positive' ways. But proof by contradiction
takes a different track.
We begin by assuming that X is true.
Then we show that IF X is true, it necessarily entails Y, where Y is
self-evidently a load of bollocks. From this we deduce that X is
false.
That's all there is to it.
As I am sure you know, that it not all there is to it,
It's pretty much the essence of proof by contradiction.
If you thought I was summarising HP, that would explain your response (because of course the details matter); but if you knew I was
summarising proofs by contradiction, I'm curious to know what I omitted.
On Wed, 07 May 2025 17:22:52 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 17:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
That's all there is to it.
As I am sure you know, that it not all there is to it,
It's pretty much the essence of proof by contradiction.
If you thought I was summarising HP, that would explain your response
(because of course the details matter); but if you knew I was
summarising proofs by contradiction, I'm curious to know what I omitted.
Proofs by contradiction are only valid if the contradiction is *well- formed*: the contradiction at the heart of the halting problem is *ill- formed* as it is a category (type) error.
On 07/05/2025 17:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
[...] In fact, the most surprising aspect of
this whole affair is that (according to Mike)
It was me, but Mike may well have pointed it out recently.
He has (and I'll bet he credited you and I forgot; sorry).
When THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION then proof by contradiction fails.
How do you not get that?
On 07/05/2025 18:55, olcott wrote:
When THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION then proof by contradiction fails.
How do you not get that?
I do. You must be talking about the Olcott Problem again, because the contradiction is inherent in the Halting Problem.
It starts with the assumption that a universal halt decider can be
written, and then shows that such a decider can be used to devise a
program that the 'universal' decider can't decide --- a contradiction.
But you already know all this.
On Wed, 07 May 2025 19:14:54 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 18:55, olcott wrote:
When THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION then proof by contradiction fails.
How do you not get that?
I do. You must be talking about the Olcott Problem again, because the
contradiction is inherent in the Halting Problem.
It starts with the assumption that a universal halt decider can be
written, and then shows that such a decider can be used to devise a
program that the 'universal' decider can't decide --- a contradiction.
But you already know all this.
The contradiction you speak of is *ill-formed*
due to it being a category
(type) error;
as such it cannot be used in any proof.
On 5/7/2025 1:14 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 18:55, olcott wrote:
When THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION then proof by contradiction fails.
How do you not get that?
I do. You must be talking about the Olcott Problem again,
because the contradiction is inherent in the Halting Problem.
Not when its terrible mistake is corrected.
It starts with the assumption that a universal halt decider can
be written, and then shows that such a decider can be used to
devise a program that the 'universal' decider can't decide ---
a contradiction.
But you already know all this.
I already know that the contradictory part of the
counter-example input has always been unreachable code.
Thus PROOF BY CONTRADICTION FAILS because there never
was any actual contradiction. It has been a false assumption
that there has been a contradiction for 90 years.
If you have no idea what unreachable code is you won't
get this.
On 07/05/2025 19:17, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2025 19:14:54 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 18:55, olcott wrote:
When THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION then proof by contradiction fails.
How do you not get that?
I do. You must be talking about the Olcott Problem again, because the
contradiction is inherent in the Halting Problem.
It starts with the assumption that a universal halt decider can be
written, and then shows that such a decider can be used to devise a
program that the 'universal' decider can't decide --- a contradiction.
But you already know all this.
The contradiction you speak of is *ill-formed*
No, it's perfectly well-formed.
due to it being a category (type) error;
No, it's not an error. It's a contradiction.
as such it cannot be used in any proof.
It already has been.
You can impose all the rules you like on your own subset of logic, but
you don't get to decide rules for the rest of us.
On Wed, 07 May 2025 19:32:09 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 19:17, Mr Flibble wrote:
The contradiction you speak of is *ill-formed*
No, it's perfectly well-formed.
Nope.
On 5/7/2025 1:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 19:31, olcott wrote:
I already know that the contradictory part of the
counter-example input has always been unreachable code.
If the code is unreachable, it can't be part of a working
program, so simply remove it.
It is unreachable by the Halting Problem counter-example
input D when correctly simulated by the simulating
termination analyzer H that it has been defined to thwart.
If you have no idea what unreachable code is you won't
get this.
I know precisely what unreachable code is.
Take it out. It's unreachable, so it cannot contribute to the
work of the program. Why did you bother to put it in?
It is only unreachable by DD correctly emulated by HHH.
Thus the "proof by contradiction" fails BECAUSE THERE
IS NO CONTRADICTION there never has been.
On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executed
program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
If is was true that it is not a faithful simulation
then you would be able to show exactly what sequence
of instructions would be a faithful simulation.
On 07/05/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2025 4:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 22:46, olcott wrote:I already know the answer.
On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executedIf is was true that it is not a faithful simulation then you would be
program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
able to show exactly what sequence of instructions would be a
faithful simulation.
If it were false, you'd be able to chop out the unreachable code
without any adverse effects. Can you?
<snip>
Then you already know why your simulation code fails to simulate
correctly... but of course you /don't/ know, so I'll explain.
Let us postulate a program that contains a function as follows:
void invisible(void)
{
secret();
}
When directly executed, the program calls invisible(), but when
simulated, the invisible() call is unreachable.
On 5/7/2025 4:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 22:46, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executed
program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
If is was true that it is not a faithful simulation
then you would be able to show exactly what sequence
of instructions would be a faithful simulation.
If it were false, you'd be able to chop out the unreachable
code without any adverse effects. Can you?
<snip>
I already know the answer.
On Wed, 07 May 2025 23:16:37 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2025 4:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 22:46, olcott wrote:I already know the answer.
On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executedIf is was true that it is not a faithful simulation then you would be >>>>> able to show exactly what sequence of instructions would be a
program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
faithful simulation.
If it were false, you'd be able to chop out the unreachable code
without any adverse effects. Can you?
<snip>
Then you already know why your simulation code fails to simulate
correctly... but of course you /don't/ know, so I'll explain.
Let us postulate a program that contains a function as follows:
void invisible(void)
{
secret();
}
When directly executed, the program calls invisible(), but when
simulated, the invisible() call is unreachable.
If invisible() call is unreachable then it isn't an accurate simulation.
On 5/7/2025 5:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2025 4:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 22:46, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
If the simulation can't reach code that the directly
executed program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
If is was true that it is not a faithful simulation
then you would be able to show exactly what sequence
of instructions would be a faithful simulation.
If it were false, you'd be able to chop out the unreachable
code without any adverse effects. Can you?
<snip>
I already know the answer.
Then you already know why your simulation code fails to
simulate correctly...
When I say correctly I mean according to the
rules of the x86 language.
When you say "correctly" you mean break the rules
of the x86 language to match a misconception.
There is such a thing as incorrect questions.
Does there exist an HHH such that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the C programming language
On 5/7/2025 11:33 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:I explained it better the first fifty times I said it.
[...]
You are essentially asking sum(3,2) to return the
sum of 5 + 7. Can you see how asking sum(3,2)
to return the sum of 5 + 7 is incorrect according
to the rules of arithmetic?
"sum" is a valid C identifier. Nothing in the rules of C says
that naming a function "sum" is incorrect, regardless of what that
function does.
On 5/7/2025 11:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 08/05/2025 02:20, olcott wrote:
<snip>
Does there exist an HHH such that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the C programming language
Let's take a look.
The file is 1373 lines long, but don't worry, because I plan to
stop at HHH's first departure from the rules of the C
programming language (or at least the first departure I spot).
Turn in your songbook if you will to:
void CopyMachineCode(u8* source, u8** destination)
{
  u32 size;
  for (size = 0; source[size] != 0xcc; size++)
    ;
  *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
  for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
  {
    Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
    *destination[N] = source[N];
  }
  ((u32*)*destination)[-1] = size;
  Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-1]: ",
((u32*)*destination)[-1]);
  Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-2]: ",
((u32*)*destination)[-2]);
};
deprecated.
I'll ignore the syntax error (a null statement at file scope is
a rookie error).
Instead, let's jump straight to this line:
  *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
On line 79 of my copy of the code, we find:
u32* Allocate(u32 size) { return 0; }
In C, 0 is a null pointer constant, so Allocate returns a null
pointer constant... which is fine as long as you don't try to
deref it. So now *destination is NULL.
We go on:
  for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
  {
    Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
    *destination[N] = source[N];
  }
*destination[N] is our first big problem (we're ignoring syntax
errors, remember). destination is a null pointer, so
destination[N] derefs a null pointer.
That's a fail. 0/10, D-, go away and write it again. And you
/dare/ to impugn other people's C knowledge! Crack a book, for
pity's sake.
If you can't even understand what is essentially
an infinite recursive relationship between two functions
except that one function can terminate the other then
you don't have a clue about the essence of my system.
On 5/6/2025 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 06/05/2025 16:38, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
These aren't particularly difficult things to comprehend. As I keep
saying, you ought to show a lot more respect for people who are
mathematically educated.
I concur.
As someone who is not particularly mathematically educated (I have an
A- level in the subject, but that's all), I tend to steer well clear of
mathematical debates, although I have occasionally dipped a toe.
I have *enormous* respect for those who know their tensors from their
manifolds and their conjectures from their eigenvalues, even though
it's all Greek to me.
But to understand the Turing proof requires little if any mathematical
knowledge. It requires only the capacity for clear thinking.
Having been on the receiving end of lengthy Usenet diatribes by cranks
in my own field, I don't hold out much hope for our current culprits
developing either the capacity for clear thought or any measure of
respect for expertise any time soon.
Nor do I believe they are capable of understanding proof by
contradiction, which is just about the easiest kind of proof there is.
In fact, the most surprising aspect of this whole affair is that
(according to Mike) Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor
flaw in the proof published by Dr Linz. How can he get that and not get
contradiction? Proof by contradiction is /much/ easier.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
The flaw is on the top of page 3 where
there are two q0 start states in the same sequence
of state transitions.
I encode that in this easier to understand notation.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
On 5/7/2025 11:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 08/05/2025 02:20, olcott wrote:
<snip>
Does there exist an HHH such that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the C programming language
Let's take a look.
The file is 1373 lines long, but don't worry, because I plan to stop
at HHH's first departure from the rules of the C programming language
(or at least the first departure I spot).
Turn in your songbook if you will to:
void CopyMachineCode(u8* source, u8** destination)
{
  u32 size;
  for (size = 0; source[size] != 0xcc; size++)
    ;
  *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
  for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
  {
    Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
    *destination[N] = source[N];
  }
  ((u32*)*destination)[-1] = size;
  Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-1]: ", ((u32*)*destination)[-1]); >>   Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-2]: ", ((u32*)*destination)[-2]); >> };
deprecated.
I'll ignore the syntax error (a null statement at file scope is a
rookie error).
Instead, let's jump straight to this line:
  *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
On line 79 of my copy of the code, we find:
u32* Allocate(u32 size) { return 0; }
In C, 0 is a null pointer constant, so Allocate returns a null pointer
constant... which is fine as long as you don't try to deref it. So now
*destination is NULL.
We go on:
  for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
  {
    Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
    *destination[N] = source[N];
  }
*destination[N] is our first big problem (we're ignoring syntax
errors, remember). destination is a null pointer, so destination[N]
derefs a null pointer.
That's a fail. 0/10, D-, go away and write it again. And you /dare/ to
impugn other people's C knowledge! Crack a book, for pity's sake.
If you can't even understand what is essentially
an infinite recursive relationship between two functions
except that one function can terminate the other then
you don't have a clue about the essence of my system.
On 08/05/2025 06:22, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2025 11:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 08/05/2025 02:20, olcott wrote:
<snip>
Does there exist an HHH such that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the C programming language
Let's take a look.
The file is 1373 lines long, but don't worry, because I plan to stop at HHH's first departure
from the rules of the C programming language (or at least the first departure I spot).
Turn in your songbook if you will to:
void CopyMachineCode(u8* source, u8** destination)
{
u32 size;
for (size = 0; source[size] != 0xcc; size++)
;
*destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
{
Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
*destination[N] = source[N];
}
((u32*)*destination)[-1] = size;
Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-1]: ", ((u32*)*destination)[-1]); >>> Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-2]: ", ((u32*)*destination)[-2]); >>> };
deprecated.
It's not just deprecated. It's hopelessly broken.
Everybody makes mistakes, and one slip would be all very well, but you make essentially the same
mistake --- writing to memory that your program doesn't own --- no fewer than four times in a single
function.
I'll ignore the syntax error (a null statement at file scope is a rookie error).
Instead, let's jump straight to this line:
*destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
On line 79 of my copy of the code, we find:
u32* Allocate(u32 size) { return 0; }
In C, 0 is a null pointer constant, so Allocate returns a null pointer constant... which is fine
as long as you don't try to deref it. So now *destination is NULL.
We go on:
for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
{
Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
*destination[N] = source[N];
}
*destination[N] is our first big problem (we're ignoring syntax errors, remember). destination is
a null pointer, so destination[N] derefs a null pointer.
That's a fail. 0/10, D-, go away and write it again. And you /dare/ to impugn other people's C
knowledge! Crack a book, for pity's sake.
If you can't even understand what is essentially
an infinite recursive relationship between two functions
except that one function can terminate the other then
you don't have a clue about the essence of my system.
If you can't even understand why it's a stupendously bad idea to dereference a null pointer, you
have no business trying to teach anyone anything about C.
Your code is the work of a programmer so hideously incompetent that 'programmer' is scarcely a fair
word to use.
When you publish code like that, to even *think* about denigrating other people's C knowledge is the
height of arrogant hypocrisy.
On 08/05/2025 06:33, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 08/05/2025 06:22, olcott wrote:One problem here is that you don't understand how PO's code
On 5/7/2025 11:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 08/05/2025 02:20, olcott wrote:
<snip>
Does there exist an HHH such that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the C programming language
Let's take a look.
The file is 1373 lines long, but don't worry, because I plan
to stop at HHH's first departure from the rules of the C
programming language (or at least the first departure I spot).
Turn in your songbook if you will to:
void CopyMachineCode(u8* source, u8** destination)
{
  u32 size;
  for (size = 0; source[size] != 0xcc; size++)
    ;
  *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
  for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
  {
    Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
    *destination[N] = source[N];
  }
  ((u32*)*destination)[-1] = size;
  Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-1]: ",
((u32*)*destination)[-1]);
  Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-2]: ",
((u32*)*destination)[-2]);
};
deprecated.
It's not just deprecated. It's hopelessly broken.
Everybody makes mistakes, and one slip would be all very well,
but you make essentially the same mistake --- writing to memory
that your program doesn't own --- no fewer than four times in a
single function.
I'll ignore the syntax error (a null statement at file scope
is a rookie error).
Instead, let's jump straight to this line:
  *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
On line 79 of my copy of the code, we find:
u32* Allocate(u32 size) { return 0; }
In C, 0 is a null pointer constant, so Allocate returns a
null pointer constant... which is fine as long as you don't
try to deref it. So now *destination is NULL.
We go on:
  for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
  {
    Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
    *destination[N] = source[N];
  }
*destination[N] is our first big problem (we're ignoring
syntax errors, remember). destination is a null pointer, so
destination[N] derefs a null pointer.
That's a fail. 0/10, D-, go away and write it again. And you
/dare/ to impugn other people's C knowledge! Crack a book,
for pity's sake.
If you can't even understand what is essentially
an infinite recursive relationship between two functions
except that one function can terminate the other then
you don't have a clue about the essence of my system.
If you can't even understand why it's a stupendously bad idea
to dereference a null pointer, you have no business trying to
teach anyone anything about C.
Your code is the work of a programmer so hideously incompetent
that 'programmer' is scarcely a fair word to use.
When you publish code like that, to even *think* about
denigrating other people's C knowledge is the height of
arrogant hypocrisy.
works.
That's to be expected, and PO's response ought to be to
explain it so that you understand. Instead he goes off on one of
his rants, so blamewise it's really down to PO.
PO's halt7.c is compiled (it is not linked),
then the obj file is
fed as input to his x87utm.exe which is a kind of x86 obj code
execution environment.
x87utm provides a number of primative
calls that halt7.c code can make, such as Allocate(), used to
allocate a block of memory for use in halt7.c. Within halt7.c
code calls an Allocate() function, and x86utm intercepts that and
performs the function internally,
PO should have said all that, not me, but it seems he's not
interested in genuine communication.
On 07/05/2025 17:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:...
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
We begin by assuming that X is true.As I am sure you know, that it not all there is to it,
Then we show that IF X is true, it necessarily entails Y, where Y is
self-evidently a load of bollocks. From this we deduce that X is false.
That's all there is to it.
It's pretty much the essence of proof by contradiction.
If you thought I was summarising HP, that would explain your response (because of course the details matter); but if you knew I was summarising proofs by contradiction, I'm curious to know what I omitted.
but I digress...
In the present case, X is the proposition that a computer can answer any >>> question that we can present to it.That's way too vague!!
It is, yes. But it is in the wash of a discussion of the Halting Problem
that has been going on for a very long time; we all know we're all talking about decidability.
There exists a TM, H, that computes h(n, i).
You're going for formality, which is of course admirable. I was going for informality,
which is not always to be sneered at.
<lots of good stuff read and snipped>
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 07/05/2025 17:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
There exists a TM, H, that computes h(n, i).
You're going for formality, which is of course admirable. I was going for
informality,
I went on to be more formal, but my remarks were made in the context of
you being informal. Maybe I should have just rephrased your remarks in
an informal way that I would not be so uncomfortable about.
which is not always to be sneered at.
No indeed. I'm sorry if you thought I was sneering.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:45:19 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,842 |