Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

comp.theory

Contact owners and managers

1–30 of 46503

0 selected

polcot2, … olcott39

Feb 22

Converting Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ to its self contradictory version

On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2

unread,

Converting Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ to its self contradictory version

On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2

Feb 22

olcott, … Mikko11

Feb 22

Ben Bacarisse inaccurate disparagement of my work

On 2/22/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-21 18:53:32 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2

unread,

Ben Bacarisse inaccurate disparagement of my work

On 2/22/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-21 18:53:32 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2

Feb 22

Ben Bacarisse, … olcott42

Feb 22

On 2/22/2024 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-20 14:16:55 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2

unread,

On 2/22/2024 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-20 14:16:55 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2

Feb 22

immibis, … Richard Damon24

Feb 22

I got a reply from Professor Macias [he does not know about Turing machines]

On 2/22/24 12:19 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 22/02/24 03

unread,

I got a reply from Professor Macias [he does not know about Turing machines]

On 2/22/24 12:19 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 22/02/24 03

Feb 22

wij, … Ben Bacarisse3

Feb 21

ℙ≠ℕℙ proof ('official')

wij <wyni...@gmail.com> writes: Your argument is just the usual "I can't think how it

unread,

ℙ≠ℕℙ proof ('official')

wij <wyni...@gmail.com> writes: Your argument is just the usual "I can't think how it

Feb 21

Dan Cross, … Richard Damon194

Feb 20

Purpose of this group?

On 2/20/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/20/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/19/24

unread,

Purpose of this group?

On 2/20/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/20/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/19/24

Feb 20

olcott, … Richard Damon50

Feb 19

Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩

On 2/19/2024 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/19/24 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/18/

unread,

Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩

On 2/19/2024 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/19/24 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/18/

Feb 19

Feb 19

x=2-x is self-referential, therefore unsolvable

"x=2-x. What is x (natural number)?" is self-referential. Self-referential questions have

unread,

x=2-x is self-referential, therefore unsolvable

"x=2-x. What is x (natural number)?" is self-referential. Self-referential questions have

Feb 19

olcott, … immibis67

Feb 18

Linz Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the self-contradictory form of Olcott Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩

On 18/02/24 23:36, olcott wrote: > On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/18/24

unread,

Linz Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the self-contradictory form of Olcott Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩

On 18/02/24 23:36, olcott wrote: > On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/18/24

Feb 18

Feb 18

ℙ!=ℕℙ proof

On 18/02/24 10:51, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 20:59 +0100, immibis wrote: >> On 2/02

unread,

ℙ!=ℕℙ proof

On 18/02/24 10:51, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 20:59 +0100, immibis wrote: >> On 2/02

Feb 18

olcott, … Richard Damon181

Feb 16

When the Linz Ĥ is required to report on its own behavior both answers are wrong

On 2/16/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/16/24

unread,

When the Linz Ĥ is required to report on its own behavior both answers are wrong

On 2/16/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/16/24

Feb 16

wij, … immibis3

Feb 16

A problem about prime number

On 16/02/24 22:12, wij wrote: > I just wrote a short c++ program to test prime numbers. The

unread,

A problem about prime number

On 16/02/24 22:12, wij wrote: > I just wrote a short c++ program to test prime numbers. The

Feb 16

olcott, … Richard Damon66

Feb 12

Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem

On 2/11/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/11/

unread,

Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem

On 2/11/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/11/

Feb 12

Feb 11

Re: Question words, and what's an answer

On 08/05/2023 05:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:29:01 PM UTC-7, Ross

unread,

Re: Question words, and what's an answer

On 08/05/2023 05:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:29:01 PM UTC-7, Ross

Feb 11

olcott, … Richard Damon27

Feb 5

To understand the misconception of mathematical incompleteness...

On 2/5/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/4/24 11

unread,

To understand the misconception of mathematical incompleteness...

On 2/5/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/4/24 11

Feb 5

immibis, … Richard Damon41

Feb 5

Why does Olcott continue to ignore the finite/infinite sequence formulation of the halting problem?

On 2/5/24 2:41 PM, immibis wrote: > On 1/02/24 04:26, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/31/24 9:

unread,

Why does Olcott continue to ignore the finite/infinite sequence formulation of the halting problem?

On 2/5/24 2:41 PM, immibis wrote: > On 1/02/24 04:26, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/31/24 9:

Feb 5

wij, … Ross Finlayson994

Feb 5

Another rebuttal of Halting Problem?

On 02/05/2024 01:00 PM, immibis wrote: > On 31/01/24 18:11, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 11

unread,

Another rebuttal of Halting Problem?

On 02/05/2024 01:00 PM, immibis wrote: > On 31/01/24 18:11, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 11

Feb 5

olcott, … immibis84

Feb 5

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference

On 31/01/24 18:11, immibis wrote: > On 1/31/24 16:40, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 6:30 AM,

unread,

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference

On 31/01/24 18:11, immibis wrote: > On 1/31/24 16:40, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 6:30 AM,

Feb 5

olcott, … immibis15

Feb 5

H correctly rejects D as non-halting

On 4/02/24 00:14, olcott wrote: > On 2/3/2024 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/3/24 4:

unread,

H correctly rejects D as non-halting

On 4/02/24 00:14, olcott wrote: > On 2/3/2024 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/3/24 4:

Feb 5

olcott, … immibis19

Feb 5

Does this criteria prove that Y calls X in infinite recursion?

On 2/02/24 15:46, olcott wrote: > On 2/2/2024 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-02-01 17:17:

unread,

Does this criteria prove that Y calls X in infinite recursion?

On 2/02/24 15:46, olcott wrote: > On 2/2/2024 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-02-01 17:17:

Feb 5

olcott, … Richard Damon10

Jan 31

H is necessarily correct to reject D as non-halting [tautology]

On 1/31/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/31/2024 6:31 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/31/24 04:

unread,

H is necessarily correct to reject D as non-halting [tautology]

On 1/31/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/31/2024 6:31 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/31/24 04:

Jan 31

Jan 31

Easy version of P!=NP proof

ANPC::= (Another NPC) Set of decision problems that additional information c must be provided to

unread,

Easy version of P!=NP proof

ANPC::= (Another NPC) Set of decision problems that additional information c must be provided to

Jan 31

Jan 29

Another definition of the Halting Problem

Every Turing machine/input pair has an execution sequence (term invented by me. Richard and Mikko

unread,

Another definition of the Halting Problem

Every Turing machine/input pair has an execution sequence (term invented by me. Richard and Mikko

Jan 29

Jan 28

Every Turing machine/input pair has one and only one execution sequence

Olcott cannot show any Turing machine/input pair that has more than one.

unread,

Every Turing machine/input pair has one and only one execution sequence

Olcott cannot show any Turing machine/input pair that has more than one.

Jan 28

olcott, … immibis24

Jan 28

The directly executed D(D) does not halt even though it looks like it does

On 1/28/24 01:35, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/27/24 6

unread,

The directly executed D(D) does not halt even though it looks like it does

On 1/28/24 01:35, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/27/24 6

Jan 28

Jan 27

About building a "general logic based on computation"

On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 11:49 +0200, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-01-21 16:10:34 +0000, wij said: >

unread,

About building a "general logic based on computation"

On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 11:49 +0200, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-01-21 16:10:34 +0000, wij said: >

Jan 27

olcott, … Richard Damon279

Jan 27

Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

On 1/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/27/24 00:

unread,

Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

On 1/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/27/24 00:

Jan 27

olcott, … immibis12

Jan 25

The directly executed D(D) does not halt

On 1/25/24 16:04, olcott wrote: > On 1/25/2024 7:16 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/24/24 20:10,

unread,

The directly executed D(D) does not halt

On 1/25/24 16:04, olcott wrote: > On 1/25/2024 7:16 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/24/24 20:10,

Jan 25

olcott, … Richard Damon3

Jan 24

Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox

On 1/24/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: > *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox* >

unread,

Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox

On 1/24/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: > *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox* >

Jan 24

wij, … Mikko12

Jan 24

Is this a paradox? what is 'equal'?

On 2024-01-23 18:46:52 +0000, wij said: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) > A

unread,

Is this a paradox? what is 'equal'?

On 2024-01-23 18:46:52 +0000, wij said: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) > A

Jan 24

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu