From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2026 1:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 02/07/2026 07:03, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 11:01 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 10:43 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 11:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 10:18 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 9:36 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 4:15 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 3:57 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 3:37 PM, dbush wrote:

On 7/1/2026 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 13:53, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2026 2:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 12:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 1:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 12:15, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 2:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The same thing as: "cats are animals" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in
English has no English meaning in Chinese. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I didn't ask for an example.  I asked for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of what it mean for the truth value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a statement to not exist in a formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm actually not convinced that Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understands what a definition is. I've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequently asked him for definitions and he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invariably responds with an example or an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy (assuming he responds at all). He >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't get that examples don't take the place >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of definitions. Examples can be useful for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying definitions, but they aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly useful on their own. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
André

You want a definition look-it-up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Until someone publishes an Olcott to Standard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English dictionary, this isn't really an option. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
André

True(L, X) ≡ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ X) // copyright
Olcott 2018
has been updated to this

True(L, X):= ∃Γ ⊆ AtomicFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That claims what it means to have the truth value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'true' (or at least it would if you defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AtomicFacts in a coherent way). It doesn't in any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way clarify what you think it means for something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not have a truth value.

André

When I define a term hundreds of times and you did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not bother to pay attention that is your mistake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your fault.

You gave no such definition of what it means for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value of a statement to not exist in a formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.

A valid answer would look something like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"The truth value of a statement does not exist in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal system when ..."

Now complete the sentence.

It is neither provable nor refutable in F.

Good.  So when you say "The truth value of (∀ x, S(x) ≠ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x) does not exist in Q", you mean "(∀ x, S(x) ≠ x) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unprovable in Q", which is commonly known.

So once again, you're saying the same thing as everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else but using different words.

Not really. It is normally thought of as undecidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning that Q is incomplete meaning that Q is deficient. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

False.  It means that there are statements in the language >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Q that have *only* an infinite connection to the axioms >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the system.

OK, I verified that.

The Halting Problem counter-example input

Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists that meets the following requirements:

Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:

A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes the following mapping:

(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly

Sure and we could equally start with the requirement >>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove that there exists a natural number > 3 and < 2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I really don't see how everyone did not immediately see >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the requirement for H to correctly report the halt >>>>>>>>>>>>> status of input D that does the opposite of whatever H >>>>>>>>>>>>> reports is a moronically stupid requirement within the >>>>>>>>>>>>> first five minutes that this requirement was made.

In other words, you don't understand that if this was >>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm H:

I spent 10,000 hours on it over 22 years.

And still don't understand that this algorithm:


void D(ptr *I)
{
     ptr *X = D;
     ptr *Y = I;
     int result;
     {
         result = 0;
     }
     if (result == 1) {
         while (1);
     }
}

Is the counter example input to this algorithm:

int H(ptr *X, ptr *Y)
{
     int result;
     {
         result = 0;
     }
     return result;
}

That is just nonsense.

Thereby proving that you've misunderstood the halting problem >>>>>>>> for the last 22 years.

D(D);   // merely halts
H(D,D); // merely returns 0 and never looks at D(D)

And algorithm H is wrong about algorithm D because algorithm D
contains a copy of algorithm H and does the opposite.

You just don't know jack shit dufus.
I have been a professional C programmer since 1986.

Says the person that just demonstrated that they don't know the
difference between an algorithm and a C function.

Back to being ignored for trolling again.

Maybe by someone but you are still far from being ignored by everone.

Do you know enough about C to understand that
dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
to show the halting problem counter-example?

It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
to support his claim.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2