Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 10/31/24 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:

On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
answering.

    I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.

Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a liar
I may politely pretend to believe.

>
     It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He is quite
often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or similar,
but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in terms
of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing that he
has a unique insight.

>
When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>
When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
the current received view of the theory of computation
is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
viewed as incorrect.

>
So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem because you are working in a new framework?
>

>
I am admitting one of two things:
(1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
actual input finite string.

>
Which is just a lie, so you are just admitting to not knowing what the facts are.
>

 It can't possibly be a lie because I am not even asserting
it as a truth only a possible truth of two possible truths.

No, the statement is counter factual, so puting it forward as even a POSSIBLE source of the problem is just a lie.

 

>
(2) I am resolving the halting problem in a way that is
comparable to the way that ZFC resolved Russell's Paradox.
Establishing the foundation that the decider must report on
the behavior of its own simulation of its input to compute
the mapping from this input to its behavior.

>
Nope, just shows you don't understand what Z-F did, or what the problem you are trying to solve is.
>

 *Comparable to* does not mean exactly the same in every single detail.
ZFC resolved RP by changing the foundations of set theory. The HP
can be equally resolved by changing the foundations of computation.
These two are exactly the same in that they *change the foundations*

No, it needed to do a lot more than that, which just shows how little you understand about logic.

 

You are just proving you don't know what you are talking about.
>

 No I am proving that you don't know what I am talking about.
The philosophy of computation never takes any received view
as inherently infallible. It examines alternative possible
views to see where they lead.
 

No, you are proving that what you are talking about is devoid of meaning, so is meaningless.