| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 48:48:35 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (4,227K bytes) |
| Messages: | 177,138 |
On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When the halting problem asks a question like
What time is it (yes or no)? the inability to
Currently it is "no-time", so the answer is no.
This message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations as noted. All Rights Reserved except as stated
in the message sig.
On 26/09/2025 02:32, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When the halting problem asks a question like
What time is it (yes or no)? the inability to
Currently it is "no-time", so the answer is no.
In computation theory the question is tantamount to the _demand_ "tell
me the unique time that is current but tell me no other thing!" to which there is no response from the automaton so queried.
Olcott is referring to the age-old debate of whether all
self-referential grammatically-propositional sentences denote entailment
of a propositional formula and how to handle it. There is much
interesting to think about, but a significant portion of the world has convened on "it doesn't denote entailment of a propositional formula, it denotes entailment of a Void formula". They're wrong, of course, because
in the kind of formal systems logicians are willing to spend much time discussing publicly "This proposition" refers to a different sentence by
mere 'connection' of that sentence which contains it to another sentence.
On 10/10/2025 9:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
This message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations as noted. All Rights Reserved except as stated
in the message sig.
On 26/09/2025 02:32, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When the halting problem asks a question like
What time is it (yes or no)? the inability to
Currently it is "no-time", so the answer is no.
In computation theory the question is tantamount to the _demand_ "tell
me the unique time that is current but tell me no other thing!" to which
there is no response from the automaton so queried.
Olcott is referring to the age-old debate of whether all
self-referential grammatically-propositional sentences denote entailment
of a propositional formula and how to handle it. There is much
interesting to think usabout, but a significant portion of the world has
convened on "it doesn't denote entailment of a propositional formula, it
denotes entailment of a Void formula". They're wrong, of course, because
in the kind of formal systems logicians are willing to spend much time
discussing publicly "This proposition" refers to a different sentence by
mere 'connection' of that sentence which contains it to another sentence.
Self-contradiction must be tossed out of correct reasoning.
On 10/10/2025 15:14, olcott wrote:
On 10/10/2025 9:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
This message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations as noted. All Rights Reserved except as stated
in the message sig.
On 26/09/2025 02:32, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When the halting problem asks a question like
What time is it (yes or no)? the inability to
Currently it is "no-time", so the answer is no.
In computation theory the question is tantamount to the _demand_ "tell
me the unique time that is current but tell me no other thing!" to which >>> there is no response from the automaton so queried.
Olcott is referring to the age-old debate of whether all
self-referential grammatically-propositional sentences denote entailment >>> of a propositional formula and how to handle it. There is much
interesting to think usabout, but a significant portion of the world has >>> convened on "it doesn't denote entailment of a propositional formula, it >>> denotes entailment of a Void formula". They're wrong, of course, because >>> in the kind of formal systems logicians are willing to spend much time
discussing publicly "This proposition" refers to a different sentence by >>> mere 'connection' of that sentence which contains it to another sentence. >>>
Self-contradiction must be tossed out of correct reasoning.
Can you use snipping of quotations so it's clear which idea of several
you're replying to?
I mention "This proposition" which is almost only ever used to provide inconsistent "definitions" in public discussions by logicians. Below I
use |- with English language sentences wrongly to provide a gist at the
risk of making a technical mistake, I'd enjoy a discussion of that to
get my idea of formalisation correct but I shant bother in the first
instance just for the sake of conversation.
in "This proposition is false", "This proposition" refers to "This proposition is false", therefore the system has the formation rule that
"This proposition" |- "This proposition is false" and vice-versa
in "This proposition is false and 1 = 2", "This proposition" refers to
"This proposition is false and 1 = 2", therefore the system has the
formation rule that "This proposition" |- "This proposition is false and
1 = 2".
in "This proposition is true or 1 = 1", "This proposition" refers to
"This proposition is true or 1 = 1", therefore the system has the
formation rule that "This proposition" |- "This proposition is true or 1
= 1".
and all the others that useful systems have.
We can deduce all manner of madnesses, because the system is
inconsistent by using "This proposition" as an object along with all the connectives such as "and" and "or".
"This proposition is false" |- "This proposition is false and 1 = 2"
"This proposition is false" |- "This proposition is true or 1 = 1"
"This proposition is true or 1 = 1" |- "This proposition is false"
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
Self-contradiction must be tossed out of correct reasoning.
I was providing a counter-example to your whole paragraph.
This message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations as noted. All Rights Reserved except as stated
in the message sig.
On 26/09/2025 02:32, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
When the halting problem asks a question like
What time is it (yes or no)? the inability to
Currently it is "no-time", so the answer is no.
In computation theory the question is tantamount to the _demand_ "tell
me the unique time that is current but tell me no other thing!" to which there is no response from the automaton so queried.
Olcott is referring to the age-old debate of whether all
self-referential grammatically-propositional sentences denote entailment
of a propositional formula and how to handle it.
There is much
interesting to think about, but a significant portion of the world has convened on "it doesn't denote entailment of a propositional formula, it denotes entailment of a Void formula". They're wrong, of course, because
in the kind of formal systems logicians are willing to spend much time discussing publicly "This proposition" refers to a different sentence by
mere 'connection' of that sentence which contains it to another sentence.
On 17/10/2025 01:59, olcott wrote:
Self-contradiction must be tossed out of correct reasoning.
and when challenged on to what he was referring, said
I was providing a counter-example to your whole paragraph.
You meant to say I contradicted myself? I can't think of another meaning.