Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

dbush <[email protected]>
Newsgroups sci.logic,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 7/4/2026 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2026-07-02 dbush wrote:
>>
>>> The halting problem doesn't actually have self reference, as
>>  > algorithms can be copied as in the below example of algorithm D:
>>>
>>> void D(ptr *I)
>>> {
>>>      // algorithm D; input: I
>>>      ptr *X = D;
>>>      ptr *Y = I;
>>>      int result;
>>>      {
>>>          // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
>>>          result = 0;
>>>      }
>>>      if (result == 1) {
>>>          while (1);
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Which is the counter example input to algorithm H:
>>>
>>> int H(ptr *X, ptr *Y)
>>> {
>>>      int result;
>>>      {
>>>          // algorithm H; inputs: X,Y
>>>          result = 0;
>>>      }
>>>      return result;
>>> }
>>
>> On 03/07/2026 18:36, 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.
>>
>> For every possible input his H halts and returns either 0 for false
>> or 1 for true. Therefore his H is a decider. It return 0 for D
>> although D halts so the decider H is not a halt decider.
>>
> 
> counter-factual H always returns 0.

Which means the condition "either 0 or 1" is satisfied.

It seems we need to add "or" to the list of basic high school level 
logic topics you don't understand.

> 
>>> His input merely halted and did not call
>>> this halt decider. He used {} in a way that
>>> made no sense in C.
>>
>> His use of {} is perfectly correct by C rules and as meaningful ans
>> usually. Your false claim (not shown above) is false.
>>
> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.