Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

[PeteOlcott]

You are conflating the existence of a contradiction with the Boolean evaluation of a contradiction.
Contradiction is asserting that the union of a pair of disjoint sets is not the empty set.
∃n ∈ ℕ (n > 5 & n < 3)

Pete, you are STILL trying to build a system that is consistent AND complete.

YOU.CAN. NOT. DO. THAT.

Gödel gave you the greatest gift in the world: a choice. So choose, damn it! Quit playing stupid games with yourself.

Here is a truth-bearer for you: consistency XOR completeness = 1

Pay close attention to the fact that XOR is NOT a truth-preserving relation. 1 XOR 1 = 0

Liar liar, pants on fire?

As with everyone else you are so certain that I must be incorrect that you dismiss what I say out-of-hand without evaluation.
None of what you (or anyone else) has ever said points out any errors in the gist of my actual reasoning.

There is a very simple way of defining formal systems such that these formal systems can express every element of the entire set of all knowledge that can be expressed using language and simultaneously rejects all semantically paradoxes as semantically ill-formed.

I came up with this system on my own spending at least 12,000 hours since 1997, and very recently found that Wittgenstein came up with exactly the same thing. http://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

Also (just last night) I completed the key most important step of my Halting Problem refutation proving beyond all possible doubt that this refutation is unequivocally correct. I derived very simple words to explain the very simple process for utterly eliminating the pathological self-reference paradox that has always been an inherent aspect of the Halting Problem proof counter-examples.

[Skepdick]

As with everyone else you are so certain that I must be incorrect that you dismiss what I say out-of-hand without evaluation.
None of what you (or anyone else) has ever said points out any errors in the gist of my actual reasoning.

The error has been pointed out. You are dismissing it out-of-hand without evaluation.

IF you solve the halting problem, then you can prove a system to be consistent and complete.

Which goes against the truth-bearer: consistency XOR completeness = 1

I came up with this system on my own spending at least 12,000 hours since 1997, and very recently found that Wittgenstein came up with exactly the same thing. http://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

In 12000 hours you would've produced a working prototype.

Until you produce one, I am evaluating the sentence "Pete Olcott has solved the halting problem" as false.

[PeteOlcott]

As with everyone else you are so certain that I must be incorrect that you dismiss what I say out-of-hand without evaluation.
None of what you (or anyone else) has ever said points out any errors in the gist of my actual reasoning.

The error has been pointed out. You are dismissing it out-of-hand without evaluation.

IF you solve the halting problem, then you can prove a system to be consistent and complete.

Which goes against the truth-bearer: consistency XOR completeness = 1

The last sentence is not any reasoning what-so-ever that I am incorrect it is merely an empty assertion bereft of reasoning.

[PeteOlcott]

I came up with this system on my own spending at least 12,000 hours since 1997, and very recently found that Wittgenstein came up with exactly the same thing. http://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

In 12000 hours you would've produced a working prototype.

Until you produce one, I am evaluating the sentence "Pete Olcott has solved the halting problem" as false.

The great news is that I am very close to producing a fully operational working prototype using X86 machine language as the model of a TM and an X86 emulator as the UTM.

This will be the actual execution of a machine that is at least equivalent to the Peter Linz H_Hat actually deciding halting for itself. The emulator is written in "C" and works across platforms. The Halt decider is also written in "C" and is compiled by Microsoft "C" as a command line program because Microsoft generates very simple code that is easy to understand.

The happiest news for myself is that just last night I figured out how to fully explain in very simple words exactly how the pathological self reference paradox of the Halting Problem proofs can be utterly eliminated from the halt deciding process. As long as my reasoning continues to hold, I have proved that my refutation is definitely correct.

http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP%28 ... 319%29.pdf

[Skepdick]

The great news is that I am very close to producing a fully operational working prototype using X86 machine language as the model of a TM and an X86 emulator as the UTM.

You don't need you make your life difficult. use C, or any modern-day programming language. They are all Turing-complete.
The compiler will produce better assembly code than you can.

I suspect you are doing it in assembly because you are stalling. 12000 hours and wasting

The last sentence is not any reasoning what-so-ever that I am incorrect it is merely an empty assertion bereft of reasoning.

Then I am unreasonable, unassertive, irrational and <insert any other pejorative you want>. But that's your problem, not mine.

You can't even define "reasonable" and "rational" so you keep falling into circularities.

I have proved that my refutation is definitely correct.

You can't even define "proof"... so you keep falling into circularities.

You can't even define 'define', because definition is a verb, not a noun.

Intellectual yet idiot.

[surreptitious57]

define reasonable and rational

Reason is the application of simple logic to any real world scenario
Rational is anything that has a logical or valid or sound foundation

[Skepdick]

Reason is the application of simple logic to any real world scenario
Rational is anything that has a logical or valid or sound foundation

Not even wrong. Just circular.

[PeteOlcott]

Proof begins with Facts (or finite strings representing Facts) and applies valid deduction (or truth preserving finite string transformation rules) and ends up with Facts (or Theorems).

[Skepdick]

Proof begins with Facts (or finite strings representing Facts) and applies valid deduction (or truth preserving finite string transformation rules) and ends up with Facts (or Theorems).

OK. Fact.

Pete Olcott has not solved the halting problem.

Write me an algorithm which assigns Boolean:True to the above string.

As always (being the helpful dude that I am), here's some boilerplate:

https://repl.it/repls/QuaintSilverComputers

Code: Select all

class Fact(str): pass
  
assert Fact('Pete Olcott has not solved the halting problem.') == True

This is throwing an exception! AssertionError. What's missing here?