What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?
Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
- Dan C.
On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?
Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
- Dan C.
Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017) https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011) https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?
Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
- Dan C.
Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
no they did not
*Here are the details of how they did* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
What other purpose would you want to use this group?
In article <uqcute$1fhr2$1@dont-email.me>, Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-02-12 01:22:35 +0000, Dan Cross said:
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
What other purpose would you want to use this group?
Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?
Sadly, this does not appear possible.
On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?
Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
- Dan C.
Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
no they did not
*Here are the details of how they did*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical. It
is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because they
can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
The halting problem is not about specifications, or context-dependent
functions. It is simply about whether a Turing machine/input pair has
a finite configuration sequence.
*In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:They don't agree with you.
On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any >>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch >>>>>>>> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over >>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum), >>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like >>>>>>>> cranks.
Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?
Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ >>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy >>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding >>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
- Dan C.
Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting >>>>>>>
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017) >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
no they did not
*Here are the details of how they did*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because
they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
The halting problem is not about specifications, or
context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
*In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
problem cannot be solved only because there is something
wrong with it.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is
anything wrong with the halting problem.
You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
prove that it is factual.
*Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
*wrong with the halting problem specification >
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
program at all. It is not even a conceptual object, and
this is due to *inconsistencies in the specification* of
the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017:8)
On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S
is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
whether Stoddart agrees with me,
that the halting problem cannot
be solved because there is something wrong with it
*inconsistencies in the specification*
says there is something wrong with it.
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.
Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?
Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:They don't agree with you.
On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
What is the purpose of this group?
From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any >>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch >>>>>>>> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over >>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum), >>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like >>>>>>>> cranks.
Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?
Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ >>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy >>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding >>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
- Dan C.
Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting >>>>>>>
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017) >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
no they did not
*Here are the details of how they did*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because
they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
The halting problem is not about specifications, or
context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
*In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
problem cannot be solved only because there is something
wrong with it.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except
that they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to
solve them.
According to that reasoning I can correctly determine that you
must be stupid when you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/02/24 22:47, olcott wrote:
On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:"this sentence is not true" is not math.
On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:"this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
It is also equally impossible to determine whether
"this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
math and computer science don't understand that this
impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
"This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences. >>>
incorrect notion of undecidability.
Yet this formalized version <is> the basis of Tarski's proof.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 107:54:45 |
| Calls: | 6,852 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,355 |
| Messages: | 5,415,945 |