Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics
Mikko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | sci.logic,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 03/07/2026 21:10, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that >>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed >>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a >>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That >>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence >>>>>> to support his claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input. >>>> >>>> Nor is it required to. All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs. >>>> >>> >>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile. >> >> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y to an >> output of either 0 or 1? >> > Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING No, but dbush's program H implements a mapping anyway. It just is a different mapping from the one a halt decider is required to do. -- Mikko