Search found 1514 matches
- Thu Oct 26, 2023 5:21 am
- Forum: Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge
- Topic: What is truth?
- Replies: 666
- Views: 146341
Re: What is truth?
The common sense understanding of truth is the correspondence theory of truth. From now on referred to as CTT. If the CTT is true,what does it refer to? Another CTT? Depending on your perspective that is a tautology or an infinite regress. So what is truth? PS;The CTT is the theory that a propositi...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:19 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
You did have a sequence of replies that were reasonable and
addressed the points that I made.
When I actually proved my point so that there was no actual
rebuttal you began spouting nonsense.
addressed the points that I made.
When I actually proved my point so that there was no actual
rebuttal you began spouting nonsense.
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:09 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong. You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches your chosen name. You are n...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong. You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches your chosen name. You are no...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:46 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Anything that H can {say, predict, believe or guess}
that D will do is always contradicted by D.
that D will do is always contradicted by D.
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:44 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
- Replies: 84
- Views: 15919
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
The assumption that termination analyzer H must report on the behavior of
the direct execution of D(D) when D has been defined to do the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns is proven to be a logically impossible
thus invalid requirement.
the direct execution of D(D) when D has been defined to do the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns is proven to be a logically impossible
thus invalid requirement.
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:23 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes. Precisely H cannot know what D does before D does it. That's not true. H can be 100% certain that D will do exactly the opposite of whatever H says. ...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:14 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
There are only two possible things H can do: (1) H says D halts making D loop (2) H says D loops making D halt That's an incomplete specification. It makes no mention of what H believes D will do. You know that Turing Machines have no volition so you resorted back to trollish behavior that you know...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:59 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
- Replies: 84
- Views: 15919
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
I am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebutted If you had the knowledge to provide a clear, consistent and complete rebuttal of my work you already would have. Correct. As I already did. I know that you never did because I know that no one ever did. What I usually see ...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:42 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
- Replies: 84
- Views: 15919
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
I can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using. This is a trivial fact of computation. A more powerful computer can solve the halting problem for all less powerful computers. I am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a cl...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:40 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
There are only two possible things H can do: (1) H says D halts making D loop (2) H says D loops making D halt That's an incomplete specification. It makes no mention of what H believes D will do. You don't understand computational determinism. I have two patents on deterministic finite automata, t...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:17 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Whatever H says D does the opposite making it logical impossible for H to correctly say what D will do. Where's the impossibility? D does EXACTLY what H guessed (but didn't say). Of course, H can't SAY what D will do. Because D will do the opposite. but H can correctly guess what D will do. There a...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:09 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Whatever H says D does the opposite making it logical
impossible for H to correctly say what D will do.
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
- Replies: 84
- Views: 15919
Re: Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal
You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this. I can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using. This is a trivial fact of computation. A more po...
- Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:55 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
- Replies: 36
- Views: 8222
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Consider the definition incomplete. What I say about D and what I believe about D need not correspond. Especially if I know that D is a contrarian. Now matter what H says D does the opposite. H believes D will halt. H says D won't halt (the opposite of what H actually believes) D does the opposite ...