Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics
Mikko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 06/07/2026 18:39, olcott wrote: > On 7/6/2026 4:00 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 04/07/2026 16:38, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2026 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Making it complete nonsense. >> >> The program has a well defined meaning so it is not non-sense. >> That it may be too big or complex for you is irrelevant. >> > > It has zero correspondence to the HP counter-example > input thus the claim that is does is a damned lie. Irrelevant to the comment that the program has a well defined meaning so it is not non-sense. And it is an exmaple that illustrates the idea of a counter-example. But apparently the idea is too hard for you even with the illustration. -- Mikko