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

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.
(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.
It really seems that (1) is more apt and everyone simply
made the mistake of thinking otherwise.

>

I have no reason to believe that he lies [versus
being profoundly mistaken];  YMMV.  His real problem is that he cannot
[or will not] resist responding to any article here, very probably inc
this one.  He is apparently not alone, which is what generates the flood
of articles.  There is a simple way to avoid that.
>

>
>
>

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer