Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote:No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume to exist or not to exist.On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said:Quine's atom is nonsense.
On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote:To a large extent it is. Both are intended to describe those sets thatOn Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called naive set theory.On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote:People seem to keep addressing the logic of the implement of POOH, but it does not matter howOn 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:Right - magical thinking.Even if presented with /direct observations/ contradicting his position, PO can (will) justMy favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even though it looks like it does:
invent
new magical thinking that only he is smart enough to understand, in order to somehow justify his
busted intuitions.
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote:
> The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits normally.
> BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED,
> Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
> a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
> then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it does).
PO simply cannot clearly think through what's going on, due to the multiple levels involved. In his
head they all become a mush of confustions, but the mystery here is why PO does not /realise/ that
he can't think his way through it?
When I try something that's beyond me, I soon realise I'm not up to it. Somehow PO tries, gets into
a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding of this goes beyond that of everybody else, due to
my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled by almost nobody on the planet, and my ability to
eliminate extraneous complexity". How did PO ever start down this path of delusions? Not that that
matters one iota... :)
Mike.
H or D are implemented, because:
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no logical connection)
were tought to be usefult to think about. But the naive set theory failed
because it is inconsistent. However, ZF excludes some sets that some
people want to consider, e.g., the universal set, Quine's atom. There is
no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom of choice and its various
consequences should be included or excluded, so both ZF and ZFC are used.
The set of all non-empty sets of non-set elements seems possible.Some theories may allow that and some may prohibit. For example, in ZFC
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.