Search Conversations

Groups

1–30 of many

polcot2, … olcott39

2/22/24

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: >

2/22/24

olcott, … Mikko11

2/22/24

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

2/22/24

Ben Bacarisse, … olcott42

2/22/24

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,

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

2/22/24

immibis, … Richard Damon24

2/22/24

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

2/22/24

Dan Cross, … Richard Damon194

2/20/24

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: >>>>

2/20/24

olcott, … Richard Damon50

2/19/24

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: >>

2/19/24

2/19/24

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?

2/19/24

olcott, … immibis67

2/18/24

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

2/18/24

olcott, … Richard Damon181

2/16/24

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

2/16/24

olcott, … Richard Damon66

2/12/24

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: >>>

2/12/24

olcott, … Richard Damon27

2/5/24

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

2/5/24

immibis, … Richard Damon41

2/5/24

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

2/5/24

wij, … Ross Finlayson994

2/5/24

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

2/5/24

olcott, … immibis84

2/5/24

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

2/5/24

olcott, … immibis15

2/5/24

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

2/5/24

olcott, … immibis19

2/5/24

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)();

2/5/24

olcott, … Richard Damon10

1/31/24

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 >>

1/31/24

1/31/24

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

1/31/24

1/29/24

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.

1/29/24

1/28/24

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.

1/28/24

olcott, … immibis24

1/28/24

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: >>>

1/28/24

olcott, … Richard Damon279

1/27/24

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/

1/27/24

olcott, … immibis12

1/25/24

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

1/25/24

olcott, … Richard Damon3

1/24/24

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.

1/24/24

immibis, olcott4

1/23/24

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. >>

1/23/24

1/21/24

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. >

1/21/24

olcott, … immibis230

1/21/24

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: >>>

1/21/24

immibis, … olcott6

1/21/24

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

1/21/24

1/21/24

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

1/21/24

immibis, … Mikko6

1/21/24

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

1/21/24

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu