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

On 11/3/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 13:35:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/2/2024 8:18 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 02 Nov 2024 06:19:49 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 11/2/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 12:10:41 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/1/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 00:12:37 +0000, olcott said:

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:

>

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.

A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.

Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional deception.

That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes all false
statements. The statement itself does not change when someone states it
so there is no clear advantage in saying that the statement was not a
lie until someone stated it.

It is also deceptive to call a statement {false} when you really only
mean that the statement is inconsistent with the current received view
and not false in every sense.
In this case the most honest thing to say is X is not the way that most
experts look at it. X is not a lie and X is not even false.

It is also deceptive to call a statement true when you really only
mean that there might be a sense in which it is, without telling.
>

>
It is true that HHH correctly rejects DDD as non-halting
on the basis that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own return instruction.

>
The word "correctly" is not a part of a truth but depends on comparison
to something unspecified.
>

 2 + 3 = 5 is correct anyone disagreeing is wrong.