Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 04/07/2026 20:01, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 03/07/2026 21:45, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to outputs, 
>>> int Not_A_Mapping(int X)
>>> {
>>>    return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> By construing that as a mapping is one of the screw-ups
>>> that prevents true expressed in language from being computable.
>>
>> By construing the above mapping as a non-mapping you disconnect from
>> Common Languge and lose your ablility to communicate.
> 
> I will not tolerate that math hijacks the term
> "mapping" to ignore requirement that there must
> be some actual correspondence between inputs and
> outputs.

Your exceesive intolerance is irrelevant. In mathematical context the
cartogrphical meaning is so obviously nonsense that no confusion is
possible. Besides it is well known that in a mathematical context many
words have meanings that are unrelated or only distantly related to
their usual meanings.

> A actual halt function must compute the mapping from
> its actual input according to the operational semantics
> of this input to the behavior that this input actually
> specifies. No function can report on the behavior of
> its caller because it has no idea who its caller is.
A function does not compute. It just is. It can be said to "report"
but that must not be interpreted too literally.

-- 
Mikko