Groups
Sign in
Groups
comp.theory
Conversations
About
Send feedback
Help
Sort By Relevance
Sort By Date
1–30 of many
polcot2
, …
olcott
39
Feb 22
Converting Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ to its self contradictory version
0000,
olcott
said: > >> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM,
olcott
wrote: >>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >
unread,
Converting Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ to its self contradictory version
0000,
olcott
said: > >> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM,
olcott
wrote: >>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >
Feb 22
olcott
, …
Mikko
11
Feb 22
Ben Bacarisse inaccurate disparagement of my work
0000,
olcott
said: > >> On 2/21/2024 12:26 PM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-02-21 14:36:15 +0000,
olcott
said: >>> >>>> On 2/21/2024 4:27 AM
unread,
Ben Bacarisse inaccurate disparagement of my work
0000,
olcott
said: > >> On 2/21/2024 12:26 PM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-02-21 14:36:15 +0000,
olcott
said: >>> >>>> On 2/21/2024 4:27 AM
Feb 22
Ben Bacarisse
, …
olcott
42
Feb 22
Linz's proofs.
0000,
olcott
said: > >> On 2/20/2024 7:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-02-19 19:36:06 +0000,
olcott
said: >>> >>>> On 2/19/2024 1:15 PM
unread,
Linz's proofs.
0000,
olcott
said: > >> On 2/20/2024 7:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-02-19 19:36:06 +0000,
olcott
said: >>> >>>> On 2/19/2024 1:15 PM
Feb 22
immibis
, …
Richard Damon
24
Feb 22
I got a reply from Professor Macias [he does not know about Turing machines]
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 22/02/24 03:39,
olcott
wrote: >>> >>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most
unread,
I got a reply from Professor Macias [he does not know about Turing machines]
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 22/02/24 03:39,
olcott
wrote: >>> >>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most
Feb 22
Dan Cross
, …
Richard Damon
194
Feb 20
Purpose of this group?
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/20/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/19/24 11:09 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/19/2024 10:00 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>
unread,
Purpose of this group?
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/20/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/19/24 11:09 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/19/2024 10:00 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>
Feb 20
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
50
Feb 19
Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩
AM,
olcott
wrote: >> On 2/18/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote: >>> On 19/02/24 01:09,
olcott
wrote: >>>> On 2/18/2024 5:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>
unread,
Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩
AM,
olcott
wrote: >> On 2/18/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote: >>> On 19/02/24 01:09,
olcott
wrote: >>>> On 2/18/2024 5:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>
Feb 19
immibis
Feb 19
x=2-x is self-referential, therefore unsolvable
2-x. What is x (natural number)?" is self-referential. Self-referential questions have no correct answer so there is no correct answer to this question. Does
Olcott
agree?
unread,
x=2-x is self-referential, therefore unsolvable
2-x. What is x (natural number)?" is self-referential. Self-referential questions have no correct answer so there is no correct answer to this question. Does
Olcott
agree?
Feb 19
olcott
, …
immibis
67
Feb 18
Linz Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the self-contradictory form of Olcott Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩
36,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/18/24 1:03 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On
unread,
Linz Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the self-contradictory form of Olcott Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩
36,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/18/24 1:03 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On
Feb 18
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
181
Feb 16
When the Linz Ĥ is required to report on its own behavior both answers are wrong
PM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On
unread,
When the Linz Ĥ is required to report on its own behavior both answers are wrong
PM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On
Feb 16
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
66
Feb 12
Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem
PM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/11/24 9:56 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>
unread,
Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem
PM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/11/24 9:56 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>
Feb 12
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
27
Feb 5
To understand the misconception of mathematical incompleteness...
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/4/24 11:01 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> *You are almost there, and still ahead of both Gödel and Tarski
unread,
To understand the misconception of mathematical incompleteness...
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/4/24 11:01 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> *You are almost there, and still ahead of both Gödel and Tarski
Feb 5
immibis
, …
Richard Damon
41
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 9:47 PM, wij wrote: >>> On Wed, 2024-01-31
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 9:47 PM, wij wrote: >>> On Wed, 2024-01-31
Feb 5
wij
, …
Ross Finlayson
994
Feb 5
Another rebuttal of Halting Problem?
11,
olcott
wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 11:07 AM, immibis wrote: >>> This is saying: If H doesn't abort its simulation then H is correct >>> to abort its simulation
unread,
Another rebuttal of Halting Problem?
11,
olcott
wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 11:07 AM, immibis wrote: >>> This is saying: If H doesn't abort its simulation then H is correct >>> to abort its simulation
Feb 5
olcott
, …
immibis
84
Feb 5
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference
40,
olcott
wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 1/30/24 10:53 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>>> On 1/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote
unread,
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference
40,
olcott
wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 1/30/24 10:53 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>>> On 1/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote
Feb 5
olcott
, …
immibis
15
Feb 5
H correctly rejects D as non-halting
14,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/3/2024 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/3/24 4:52 PM,
olcott
wrote: >> >> Right, and it did not CORRECTLY determine that its CORRCT
unread,
H correctly rejects D as non-halting
14,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/3/2024 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/3/24 4:52 PM,
olcott
wrote: >> >> Right, and it did not CORRECTLY determine that its CORRCT
Feb 5
olcott
, …
immibis
19
Feb 5
Does this criteria prove that Y calls X in infinite recursion?
46,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/2/2024 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-02-01 17:17:39 +0000,
olcott
said: >> >>> #include >>> typedef int(*ptr)();
unread,
Does this criteria prove that Y calls X in infinite recursion?
46,
olcott
wrote: > On 2/2/2024 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-02-01 17:17:39 +0000,
olcott
said: >> >>> #include >>> typedef int(*ptr)();
Feb 5
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
10
Jan 31
H is necessarily correct to reject D as non-halting [tautology]
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/31/2024 6:31 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/31/24 04:56,
olcott
wrote: >>> When one understands that H is always correct to abort any >>
unread,
H is necessarily correct to reject D as non-halting [tautology]
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/31/2024 6:31 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/31/24 04:56,
olcott
wrote: >>> When one understands that H is always correct to abort any >>
Jan 31
wij
Jan 31
Easy version of P!=NP proof
ANPC::= (Another NPC) Set of decision problems that additional information c must be provided to compute the problem in P-time (including processing
unread,
Easy version of P!=NP proof
ANPC::= (Another NPC) Set of decision problems that additional information c must be provided to compute the problem in P-time (including processing
Jan 31
immibis
Jan 29
Another definition of the Halting Problem
asks: Is this Turing machine/input pair's execution sequence finite?
Olcott
does not understand this and ignored this the last time I mentioned it, which proves dishonesty.
unread,
Another definition of the Halting Problem
asks: Is this Turing machine/input pair's execution sequence finite?
Olcott
does not understand this and ignored this the last time I mentioned it, which proves dishonesty.
Jan 29
immibis
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
, …
immibis
24
Jan 28
The directly executed D(D) does not halt even though it looks like it does
35,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/27/24 6:51 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/27/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>
unread,
The directly executed D(D) does not halt even though it looks like it does
35,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/27/24 6:51 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/27/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>
Jan 28
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
279
Jan 27
Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/27/24 00:04,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 1/26/
unread,
Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider
AM,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/27/24 00:04,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 1/26/
Jan 27
olcott
, …
immibis
12
Jan 25
The directly executed D(D) does not halt
04,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/25/2024 7:16 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/24/24 20:10,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/24/2024 12:58 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 1/24
unread,
The directly executed D(D) does not halt
04,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/25/2024 7:16 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/24/24 20:10,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/24/2024 12:58 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 1/24
Jan 25
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
3
Jan 24
Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox
PM,
olcott
wrote: > *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox* > https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf > "x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
unread,
Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox
PM,
olcott
wrote: > *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox* > https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf > "x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
Jan 24
immibis
,
olcott
4
Jan 23
Proof that Olcott doesn't understand proof by contradiction
22,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/23/2024 8:01 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/22/24 02:20, immibis wrote: >>> I am camouflaged in all environments at the same time. >>
unread,
Proof that Olcott doesn't understand proof by contradiction
22,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/23/2024 8:01 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/22/24 02:20, immibis wrote: >>> I am camouflaged in all environments at the same time. >>
Jan 23
immibis
2
Jan 21
Can Olcott agree on these 8 points?
though >
Olcott
might not understand this. > > 8. Reasoning about Turing machines on the basis of any machine that is > not isomorphic to Turing machines is invalid. >
unread,
Can Olcott agree on these 8 points?
though >
Olcott
might not understand this. > > 8. Reasoning about Turing machines on the basis of any machine that is > not isomorphic to Turing machines is invalid. >
Jan 21
olcott
, …
immibis
230
Jan 21
Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem
39,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/21/2024 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/21/24 3:24 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/20/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>
unread,
Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem
39,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/21/2024 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/21/24 3:24 PM,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/20/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>
Jan 21
immibis
, …
olcott
6
Jan 21
The correct definition of a halting decider
36,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/21/2024 11:57 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/21/24 16:34,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/21/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote: >>>> The correct
unread,
The correct definition of a halting decider
36,
olcott
wrote: > On 1/21/2024 11:57 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/21/24 16:34,
olcott
wrote: >>> On 1/21/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote: >>>> The correct
Jan 21
immibis
2
Jan 21
Does Olcott accept these definitions? (Turing machine; execution trace)
This was sent accidentally and should be ignored. I haven't learned how to cancel it yet. On 1/21/24 15:29, immibis wrote: > 1. A Turing machine
unread,
Does Olcott accept these definitions? (Turing machine; execution trace)
This was sent accidentally and should be ignored. I haven't learned how to cancel it yet. On 1/21/24 15:29, immibis wrote: > 1. A Turing machine
Jan 21
immibis
, …
Mikko
6
Jan 21
Olcott can't answer this barber question
0000,
olcott
said: > On 1/20/2024 4:09 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/19/24 21:48, immibis wrote: >>> True or false? >>> ∀x( ({{x}} ∈ Shaves) ⇔ ¬({{Barber
unread,
Olcott can't answer this barber question
0000,
olcott
said: > On 1/20/2024 4:09 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/19/24 21:48, immibis wrote: >>> True or false? >>> ∀x( ({{x}} ∈ Shaves) ⇔ ¬({{Barber
Jan 21