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

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/02/24 02:22, 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.
>

Found the party pooper. It's not like anyone else is trying to talk
about anything else - most of Usenet is dead - if you don't find this
funny then set your client to automatically ignore all subthreads
started by him.

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

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

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
> 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
>
>
This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
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.

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:
>>> 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
>>
>>
> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
> 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*

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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?

--
Mikko

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. I see that this thread
has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
specious claims.

- Dan C.

On 02/12/2024 05:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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. I see that this thread
> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
> specious claims.
>
> - Dan C.
>

Why is "classical quasi-modal logic" with "ex falso quodlibet
plus material implication" considered so usual when all computer
"logic" is implemented with NAND gates and the "Boolean lattice",
not the "Compte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
classical quasi-modal logic"?

I think that what's called "classical logic" today should
be called "classical _quasi-modal_ logic" to better reflect
what it is, and that De Morgan's rules or "the classical
logic with direct implication and a functional contrapositive"
has better title to "classical logic", the term.

Wondering whether "LLM" is "large language model"
or "Lots'o LISP Macros".

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:14:43 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> >What other purpose would you want to use this group?
>
> Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?
>
> Sadly, this does not appear possible. I see that this thread
> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
> specious claims.

I think it's perfectly possible. Start a serious thread about some
theoretical computer science issue and chances are good that you will get
replies. But without the Olcott threads , I consider most likely that this
group would become a wasteland like comp.programming where anything on
topic gets posted very rarely and various random vandals see the empty group
and post assorted random nonsense. At least the Olcott discussions are on
topic.

As for this thread devolving , what were you hoping for this thread ? I'm
sure that the people responding to Olcott are perfectly aware that they have
the option to stop but continue responding for whatever reasons they have.
There was a thread some months ago (started by Ben Bacarisse if I remember
correctly) urging people to stop responding (so much) to Olcott but it didn't
achieve anything.

Finally , if you start a thread mentioning Olcott , it's only natural he
will jump in.

On 2/12/2024 7:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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. I see that this thread
> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
> specious claims.
>
> - 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

*Here are the details of how they agreed with me*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/12/2024 10:42 AM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:14:43 -0000 (UTC)
> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
>>> What other purpose would you want to use this group?
>>
>> Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?
>>
>> Sadly, this does not appear possible. I see that this thread
>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>> specious claims.
>
> I think it's perfectly possible. Start a serious thread about some
> theoretical computer science issue and chances are good that you will get
> replies. But without the Olcott threads , I consider most likely that this
> group would become a wasteland like comp.programming where anything on
> topic gets posted very rarely and various random vandals see the empty group
> and post assorted random nonsense. At least the Olcott discussions are on
> topic.
>
> As for this thread devolving , what were you hoping for this thread ? I'm
> sure that the people responding to Olcott are perfectly aware that they have
> the option to stop but continue responding for whatever reasons they have.
> There was a thread some months ago (started by Ben Bacarisse if I remember
> correctly) urging people to stop responding (so much) to Olcott but it didn't
> achieve anything.
>
> Finally , if you start a thread mentioning Olcott , it's only natural he
> will jump in.

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

*Here are the details of how they agreed with me*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/12/2024 10:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/12/2024 05:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> 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.  I see that this thread
>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>> specious claims.
>>
>>     - Dan C.
>>
>
> Why is "classical quasi-modal logic" with "ex falso quodlibet
> plus material implication" considered so usual when all computer
> "logic" is implemented with NAND gates and the "Boolean lattice",
> not the "Compte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
> classical quasi-modal logic"?
>
> I think that what's called "classical logic" today should
> be called "classical _quasi-modal_ logic" to better reflect
> what it is, and that De Morgan's rules or "the classical
> logic with direct implication and a functional contrapositive"
> has better title to "classical logic", the term.
>
>
> Wondering whether "LLM" is "large language model"
> or "Lots'o LISP Macros".
>
>

ChatGPT4 Large Language Model https://openai.com/gpt-4

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2024-02-12 13:14:43 +0000, Dan Cross said:

> 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.

You can always start a serious discussion. Of course, it is possible
that nobody else wants to discuss seriously. But it is also possible
that someone does. You are likely to get replies that do not contribute
to the serious discussion but you needn't to respond to them or even
to read them more than needed to determine their unimportance.

--
Mikko

On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 13:14 +0000, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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.  I see that this thread
> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
> specious claims.
>
> - Dan C.
>

I think what olcott said is perfectly on topic. No one is forced to
join olcott's thread. Besides, anyone discussed with olcott should
have gained something.
If you don't like it, you can always start a new thread anytime.

On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>> 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*
>
>
They don't agree with you.

On 12/02/24 18:00, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 7:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> 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.  I see that this thread
>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>> specious claims.
>>
>>     - 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
>
> *Here are the details of how they agreed with me*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>

You are libelling two PhD computer science professors.

On 02/12/2024 09:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 10:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 02/12/2024 05:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> 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. I see that this thread
>>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>>> specious claims.
>>>
>>> - Dan C.
>>>
>>
>> Why is "classical quasi-modal logic" with "ex falso quodlibet
>> plus material implication" considered so usual when all computer
>> "logic" is implemented with NAND gates and the "Boolean lattice",
>> not the "Compte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
>> classical quasi-modal logic"?
>>
>> I think that what's called "classical logic" today should
>> be called "classical _quasi-modal_ logic" to better reflect
>> what it is, and that De Morgan's rules or "the classical
>> logic with direct implication and a functional contrapositive"
>> has better title to "classical logic", the term.
>>
>>
>> Wondering whether "LLM" is "large language model"
>> or "Lots'o LISP Macros".
>>
>>
>
> ChatGPT4 Large Language Model https:// openai.com/gpt-4
>

news:comp.ai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language)
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/307824.307853
https://alt.folklore.computers.narkive.com/McLBxGRD/the-arthur-t-murray-mentifex-faq
https://code.google.com/archive/p/mindforth/wikis/UserManual.wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Interchange_Format

http://rfinlayson.blogspot.com/2009/06/notional-coding.html

https://trec.nist.gov/
https://aclanthology.org/events/acl-2022/

"The terms kook and crank may often be used pejoratively,
but they do have a fairly objective, well-defined meaning.
Simply put, a crank or kook is someone who believes or
pretends to have knowledge of some subject, actively seeks
to speak authoritatively about it, and makes unsupported
claims that outrageously conflict with widely accepted
scientific results."
-- http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html#x1-340004.4

https://www.yudkowsky.net/
https://intelligence.org/

You know I've read Norvig and Russell's "Artificial Intelligence",
which is sort of a model of a inference engine, is all,
not really saying what goes into it, but, I felt that
I got more out of Haugeland's "Artificial Intelligence",
then there's Herbert Simon and so on, and remember also that
for a long AI was just called "bots", like CMU,
or "agents", like UMBC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haugeland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artificial_intelligence_researchers

Lots'o LISP Macros

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:
>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>> 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*
>>
>>
> They don't agree with you.

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)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/12/2024 12:30 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 18:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 7:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> 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.  I see that this thread
>>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>>> specious claims.
>>>
>>>     - 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
>>
>> *Here are the details of how they agreed with me*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>
>
> You are libelling two PhD computer science professors.

That is libel against me.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/12/2024 12:40 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/12/2024 09:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 10:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2024 05:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> 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.  I see that this thread
>>>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>>>> specious claims.
>>>>
>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why is "classical quasi-modal logic" with "ex falso quodlibet
>>> plus material implication" considered so usual when all computer
>>> "logic" is implemented with NAND gates and the "Boolean lattice",
>>> not the "Compte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
>>> classical quasi-modal logic"?
>>>
>>> I think that what's called "classical logic" today should
>>> be called "classical _quasi-modal_ logic" to better reflect
>>> what it is, and that De Morgan's rules or "the classical
>>> logic with direct implication and a functional contrapositive"
>>> has better title to "classical logic", the term.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wondering whether "LLM" is "large language model"
>>> or "Lots'o LISP Macros".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ChatGPT4 Large Language Model   https:// openai.com/gpt-4
>>
>
> news:comp.ai
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language)
> https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/307824.307853
> https://alt.folklore.computers.narkive.com/McLBxGRD/the-arthur-t-murray-mentifex-faq
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/mindforth/wikis/UserManual.wiki
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Interchange_Format
>
>
> http://rfinlayson.blogspot.com/2009/06/notional-coding.html
>
> https://trec.nist.gov/
> https://aclanthology.org/events/acl-2022/
>
>
>
> "The terms kook and crank may often be used pejoratively,
> but they do have a fairly objective, well-defined meaning.
> Simply put, a crank or kook is someone who believes or
> pretends to have knowledge of some subject, actively seeks
> to speak authoritatively about it, and makes unsupported
> claims that outrageously conflict with widely accepted
> scientific results."
> -- http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html#x1-340004.4
>
>
> https://www.yudkowsky.net/
> https://intelligence.org/
>
>
>
> You know I've read Norvig and Russell's "Artificial Intelligence",
> which is sort of a model of a inference engine, is all,
> not really saying what goes into it, but, I felt that
> I got more out of Haugeland's "Artificial Intelligence",
> then there's Herbert Simon and so on, and remember also that
> for a long AI was just called "bots", like CMU,
> or "agents", like UMBC.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haugeland
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artificial_intelligence_researchers
>
>
> Lots'o LISP Macros
>
>

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.

Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

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)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/02/24 19:47, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 12:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 18:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2024 7:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> 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.  I see that this thread
>>>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>>>> specious claims.
>>>>
>>>>     - 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
>>>
>>> *Here are the details of how they agreed with me*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>
>>
>> You are libelling two PhD computer science professors.
>
> That is libel against me.
>
That is libel against me.

On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>>> 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*
>>>
>>>
>> They don't agree with you.
>
> 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)
>
>

If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then the
halting problem is proven unsolvable.

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.