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 04/07/2026 16:37, dbush wrote:
> 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.
I think ir is the Commol language "or", not the logical "or", that
he failed to understand. Perhaps also "counter-factual", which is
rarely used in Common Language.
--
Mikko