Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 09/07/2026 06:25, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2026 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 18:33, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2026 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> 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. 
>>>
>>> It makes terms-of-the-art into damned liars.
>>
>> No, your excessive intolerance does not do that.
> 
> All knowledge has its own natural type hierarchy.

Irrelevant to your misconceptions about the meaning of "mapping".

-- 
Mikko