Does the halting problem actually limit what computers can do?

[olcott]

*Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
whatever H says.

H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt

For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
(Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false

*No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
answer.

What time is it (yes or no)?
has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
answering it.

When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
(thus incorrect) question in these cases.

The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no actual
limit on anyone or anything.

This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[Richard Damon]

On 10/29/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
> whatever H says.
>

Good that you admit that.

> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt

Except that it should be H(D,D), since you need to give H the input that
D needs to be given.

So, your "Correct" function is false since H(D,D) will, as you just
agreed, never return the right answer for the D designed for it.

Note also, the FUNCTION Correct must return the value false if the H as
its input doesn't return a value in a finite number of steps, as that
makes H not actually a decider, so it is not a "correct decider".

>
> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false

Nope, try to give the case. You are just LYING here and showing your
ignorance.

Remember, each H above is a SPECIFIC Turing machine (and for each H
there will be a SPECIFC D, based on that SPECIFIC H, for which that
SPECIFIC H will get the answer wrong.

Remember, for EVERY actual SPECIFIC Turing Machine D (with input x) D(x)
will either Halt or Not.

For every actual SPECIFIC Turing Machine H, it will either give the
correct answer, so Correct will answer True, of H will either not answer
or give an incorrect answer, so Correct will answer False.

There is no case for a SPECIFIC H, and a SPECIFIC D that Correct(H(D))
doesn't have a True or False answer. Try to show the case.

Remember H is a SPECIFIC TM, (since H ∈ TM) not a "set" of Turing
Machines. Your "Correct" predicate doesn't take a "set" of Turing
Machines, but an individual Turing Machine, and the "Pathological" D
isn't built on a "Set" of Turing Machine, but an individual one.

The actual question is about a specific input, and that ALWAYS has a
correct answer, its just that some machihes won't get it right. And we
can show that for EVERY decider we can make, there WILL be some specific
input (depending on the specific decider we are looking at) that the
decider WILL get wrong.

Thus, non-computable valid problems exist, as shown by theory.

>
> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
> answer.

Nope, again your ignorance of the probem.

>
> What time is it (yes or no)?
> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
> answering it.

Right, THAT question has no correct answer.

Does D halt, HAS a correct answer, H just doesn't give it.

DIFFERENCE.

Shows you don't understand the problem.

>
> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.

But there IS a "Correct Answer", so the QUESTION isn't actualy
self-contradictory.

You are showing your stupidity,

>
> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no actual
> limit on anyone or anything.

Sure does, but you are too stupd to understand.

>
> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>

Nope. ZFC handled Russell's Paradox by deciding that we can't actually
logically talk about a truely "Unversal" set of all possible sets.

At best, your equivalence is just the admission that there IS a
limitation to computabilty, that there exist a class of properties of
Turing Machine that does exist and is valid (as the property is defined
for all Turing Machines) but can not be computed by another Turing
machine, given a proper description of the machine to be decided on.

That is EXACTLY the statement you have been trying to DISPROVE for all
these years, but seem to now be accepting, but still saying it doesn't
affect anything.

You are ADMITTING some things are not computable, and then saying this
fact doesn't limit what a computation can do.

That is like saying I know I can't get this car over 80 MPH, but there
is no limit to how fast this car can go.

Just a pitiful LIE.

[Jim Burns]

On 10/29/2023 1:30 PM, olcott wrote:

> [Subject: Does the halting problem
> actually limit what computers can do?]

> The inability to correctly answer
> an incorrect question places
> no actual limit on anyone or anything.

The inability of a computer program
to correctly answer all halting-questions
*places* no actual limit on anyone or anything.

That's not how a theorem works.

Nothing which a theorem is about _changes_
in response to a proof.

_We_ change in response to a proof.
Our state of knowledge changes.

Before we know that
no computer program decides all halting questions,
no computer program decides all halting questions.

The difference, before and after,
is in _what we know_

----
We finites are able to learn of
the existence of a wall of infinitely-many bricks
without our having stacked infinitely-many bricks
one on another.

All I am saying is:
Nice!

[olcott]

Every H of the infinite set of all Turing machines gets the wrong
answer on their corresponding input D because this input D
essentially derives a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this H.

Like the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
the blame for the lack of a correct answer goes to the question
and not the one attempting to answer it.

[Richard Damon]

On 10/29/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:

> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
> whatever H says.
>
> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt

Noticed that I misread what "Correct" was defined as.

Note, that Correct(H(D) == value), where value is True/False can only be
true for the one value that H(D) does return, and the other, it can
NEVER be true.

Correct, as you have defined it, can't be used to determine if a
question actually has a correct value, only if H is correct in giving
its answer.

>
> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false

First, that ISN'T necessarily a true statement, unless you are stating
that D is a dependent variable such that:

for all H ∈ TM, there exist a D ∈ representation(TM) such that
(Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false

So, all you are saying here is that for all H there exists a D that H(D)
happens to get the wrong answer. So what.

To point out the limitiation of your "Correct" predicate imagine that if
H instead of being a Halt Detector, was a Prime detector, but was
incorrectly programmed and it though 2 was not prime, then

H(2) == False

Correct(H(2) == true) is false since H(2) doesn't return 2, so it wasn't
correct in saying 2, and

Correct(H(2) == false) is false, since 2 is prime, so H is not correct
in saying it is not prime.

Thus: (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false

Doesn't say that the question is invalid, just that H got the answer wrong.

The fact that you can say the same for ALL possible Turing Macines,
still doesn't make the question "Wrong", just uncomputable.

You don't seem to understand that H(D) is a FIXED VALUE based on the
program of H, and that can ligitimately be WRONG

[olcott]

On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:

Every H of the infinite set of all Turing machines gets the wrong
answer on their corresponding input D because this input D
essentially derives a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this H.

Like the question: What time is it (yes or no)?

the blame for the lack of a correct answer goes to the question
and not the one attempting to answer it.

[Richard Damon]

So?

Who says the need to be able to do it?

That is EXACTLY what the Theorem is proving, and which you admit, but
you want to refuse the logical consequence of it, because you don't

>
> Every H of the infinite set of all Turing machines gets the wrong
> answer on their corresponding input D because this input D
> essentially derives a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> for this H.

Nope, you are confused by mixing sets with objects in the set.

Nice Category error there.


Every question in that set had a correct answer, that might have been
given by some members of the deciders in that set. That shows that the
actual QUESTION is VALID and not "self-contradictory"

The fact that every instance of the question has a correct answer, makes
it VALID.

The fact that every decider has such a question that it can't answer,
makes it uncomputable.

The fact that your Strawman version (What can H return to be correct)
doesn't have an answer is just part of the proof that the actual theorem
is proven, and just shows your ignorance of the subject.

>
> Like the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
> the blame for the lack of a correct answer goes to the question
> and not the one attempting to answer it.
>

Nope, Strawman. you like Strawman, I guess because they are just as
smart as you.

What time is it (yes or no)? doesn't have an answer.

Does a particual D(D) Halt, DOES have an answer, and it will always be
the opposite of what the H(D,D) returns for the SPECIFIC H that D was
built to refute.

Having an answer that ONE machine can't answer correctly is not like a
question that doesn't actually have a answer (due to a category error in
this case) is not the same.

Your thinking they are the same just proves your stupidity.

[Richard Damon]

So?

Who says the need to be able to do it?

That is EXACTLY what the Theorem is proving, and which you admit, but
you want to refuse the logical consequence of it, because you don't

actually understand how logic or Truth works.

> Every H of the infinite set of all Turing machines gets the wrong
> answer on their corresponding input D because this input D
> essentially derives a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> for this H.

Nope, you are confused by mixing sets with objects in the set.

Nice Category error there.


Every question in that set had a correct answer, that might have been
given by some members of the deciders in that set. That shows that the
actual QUESTION is VALID and not "self-contradictory"

The fact that every instance of the question has a correct answer, makes
it VALID.

The fact that every decider has such a question that it can't answer,
makes it uncomputable.

The fact that your Strawman version (What can H return to be correct)
doesn't have an answer is just part of the proof that the actual theorem
is proven, and just shows your ignorance of the subject.

>

> Like the question: What time is it (yes or no)?
> the blame for the lack of a correct answer goes to the question
> and not the one attempting to answer it.
>

[olcott]

Changing the subject to a different H for this same input D is
the strawman deception.

Ignoring the context of who is asked the question deceptively
changes the meaning of the question.

[Richard Damon]

YOU'RE the one that said "for all H", so the strawman is YOURS

>
> Ignoring the context of who is asked the question deceptively
> changes the meaning of the question.

Except that when the question's answer isn't affected by the context it
is asked,

"Does a SPECIFIED D(D) Halt?" is INDEPENDENT of whou you ask.

So, you are just showing you deceitfulness because will the question is
each time, about a SPECIFIC input, you try to change it to the input
associated with the decider deciding it, which is not a valid input.

You are just showing your stupidity by the form of your arguments.

[olcott]

On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:

Every H of the infinite set of all Turing machines gets the wrong
answer

on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D

because this input D essentially derives a self-contradictory thus
incorrect question for this H.

[olcott]

On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:

Every H of the infinite set of all Turing machines gets the wrong
answer

on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D
on their corresponding input D

because this input D
because this input D
because this input D

because this input D
because this input D

essentially derives a self-contradictory thus

incorrect question for this H.
incorrect question for this H.
incorrect question for this H.
incorrect question for this H.
incorrect question for this H.

[Richard Damon]

Almost, but each is a DIFFERENT Question, and all the questions have
answer, and thus are VALID.

D isn't "Self-Contradictory", it is contadictory to a DIFFERENT machine
then itself.

I guess you are just showing you dont' know the meaning of "self"
because you are too stupid.

(and acting like a two year old in repeating your erroneous claim over
and over as a BIG LIE thinking that makes it more correct.

You still refuse to actually try to point out the actual errors in my
statement but continue to repeat your proven wrong statements, showing
that you are just a pitiful logical idiot.

"Does (a specific) D(D) as specified by the input Halt?" is a valid
question as it has a correct answer.

The fact we can come up with a D (different in each case) for ANY H, as
you have admitted, means the question is not computable.


Maybe you should try to prove your point with more that just an appeal
to a (proven incorrrect) authority (namely you).

Try starting out with some actual accepted definition of the terms and
use some sound logic (not sure you know any) to try to make you point.

Remember, the question you are trying to prove invalid is:

"Does the specific computation described by the input Halt when run?"

and not "What does H need to return to get the right answer?" (which is
an invalid question, as for ANY specific H, it CAN only return the
answer that its algorithm will compute, and a given H has a specified
specific algorithm).

and also not, "Does an H exist that can return the right value for the
D(D) derived fron it?" as that is asking not about a specific input, but
about the existance of a machine to compute something. Non-existance of
machines to do something is NOT a "error", but a sign the problem is
uncomputable, which is exactly the type of questin that Computabilyt
Theory investigates. What sort of questions ARE computable, and which
are not. Not being computable is an acceptable state for a problem.

[Richard Damon]

Repeating your answer because you weren't two-yearold enough first time?

You also have a category error as you are conflating H as an "every"
machine of the set with THIS machie of the set.

For THIS machine of the set, and THIS D of the set, there IS an answer,
so the question is valid.

and, but each is a DIFFERENT Question, and all the questions have
answer, and thus are also VALID.

D isn't "Self-Contradictory", it is contradictory to a DIFFERENT machine

[http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/]
[Options]

[olcott]

On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:

The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory

thus incorrect question for this H.

The only rebuttals to this in the last two years rely
on one form of the strawman deception of another.

*Stupid or dishonest people may say otherwise*
That every D has a halt decider has nothing to do with
the claim that every H has an undecidable input.

[Richard Damon]

So, you are just showing that you don't know what "satisfiable" means in
logic, just showing off your ignorance (even though you have been told
before, I guess you are to stupid to learn).

You also seem to not understand what the "self" part of
"self-contradictory" means, again, because you are too stupid to
understand when taught.

You also are repeating your category error by confusing specific
questions for sets of questios.

>
> The only rebuttals to this in the last two years rely
> on one form of the strawman deception of another.
>

Nope, your failure to actually point to an error shows that you don't
understand how logic works.

If my replies are strawman, you can point to the claim that isn't
actually correct, and reference the accepted definition of the problem
to show where they differ.

The problem here is that you are just projecting, as a fundamental part
of the problem is you try to change the fundamental nature of the
problem by building your own strawman, and when I knock them down, you
claim my reassertion of the actual problem is a strawman, because you
can't recognise the actual problem.

> *Stupid or dishonest people may say otherwise*
> That every D has a halt decider has nothing to do with
> the claim that every H has an undecidable input.
>

So, more stupid errors.

the "input" is not "undecidable", as for every specific H, there is a
specific D(D), and that input has a definite behavior so the quesiton of
its Halt is valid.

Also, due to the limited nature of your H's design, that inputs behavior
IS decidable by another decider, and "decidable" just requires that
there exist SOME decider (which doesn't need to be your H) that can
answer the question correctly, and that exists, you have even shown how
to build it (your H1).

Thus, it isn't that the "input" is undecidable, it is that the PROBLEM
isn't, as no one machine can compute the answer for every possible input.

AGAIN, you are showing your STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE.

[olcott]

I now have two University professors that agree with this.
My words may need some technical improvement...

[problem specification] is unsatisfiable

The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
papers in a single sound bite:

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

[Richard Damon]

Anonymous experts are not "evidence" and no "expert" can contradict the
actual definitions.

Especially when you don't even quote the actual words used, since you
have shown youself to misinterprete what they are saying or have used
misleading wording where they will interpret your words to mean what
they are supposed to mean, and not you corrupted meaning.

You are just continuing to prove that you do not understand how logic
works, and by not even trying to refute the rebuttal are accepting them
as correct responses, and thus admitting you are just a stupid liar.

As pointed out, the actual questions DO have answer, so you are just an
unsound liar by your arguements that they do not.

You are just making sure that you name will be MUD for as long as it is
remembered, until it falls in the trash heap of history.

This will also mean that any good ideas you might have had have been
poisoned and worthless.

You have just gas-lighted your self into being just a babbling idiot
that can only repeat the lies he convinced himself of, with no actual
logical backing.

Too bad.

[olcott]

Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
and no "expert" can contradict the
actual definitions.

The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
that no one ever noticed before.

Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
foundations of concepts such as undecidability.

All of my related work in the last twenty years
has focused on these foundational underpinnings.

[Richard Damon]

Since you are so bad at the actual definition of words, it seems more
like you are imagining things that aren't there.

If you HAVE found an actual "nuances" that hasn't been noticed before,
maybe if you try an actual step by step proof showing that "nuance".

I don't think you can, and this is just another case of an idiot
shooting at a target that just doesn't exist.

>
> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.

Maybe it is the philosophers that don't understand that undeciability is
a PRECISELY defined quantity.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that in Formal Systems,
the rules are very important, and the things you are talking about are
well established by those rules.

If you want to change the "Rules" of the system, then you are in a very
real sense needing to START OVER and buid back up from the ground up.

It seems that you are so ignorant, that you don't understand that many
of your "new" ideas are actually existing, but becuase of the discovered
limitations, just parts of fringe systems.

Yes, you can have systems where all true statements are provable, but
the resulting system ends up very limited in scope, and can't be used to
form anything like the mathematics that support things like Computation
Theory.

>
> All of my related work in the last twenty years
> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>

And is a pile of rubbish, because you don't actually seem to know what
the thigs actually mean.

Maybe if you were willing to actually LEARN about the systems you want
to talk about, but your stated fear of "Learning error by rote" as put
you in the state of Being in Error by Ignorance.

Your idea of building a system from "First Principles" requires you to
first actually LEARN those "First Principles". And for a "Formal Logic
System" that means at least enough to know all the basic rules and
definitons of the system. Things you have at time just admitted you
never knew, which sort of negates any "First Principle" developement you
might have done.

I will say that many of your errors where known about 100 years ago, so
it shows a glaring hole in your education.

[olcott]

In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
SELF-CONTRADICTORY

The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
(thus incorrect) question.

This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
problem specification.

[Richard Damon]

Except it isn't, becuase you don't understand the logic.

>
> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
> (thus incorrect) question.

Which it isn't, and you don't understand the term.

>
> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
> problem specification.
>

yes, your "epiphany" is just your delusion from stupidity.

You have PROVEN you don't understand a thing about what you are talking
about and thus prove yourself a liar.

As I mentioned, if you really think you have something, try to actually
show it with a real formal proof starting from the actual accepted
definitions.

Your problem seems to be that you just don't understand the fields well
enough to know what you can actually start with, or logic enough to
actually form a real logical proof.

Your just repeating your INCORRECT claims, just proves that you have
gas-light yourself into beliving your lies, and that you actually have
nothing to base your work on, except your own stupid lies.

[olcott]

I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
definitions because the issue is that one of these
definitions semantically entails more meaning than
anyone ever noticed before.

That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
professors only applied to the halting problem specification.

The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
my own terms such as "incorrect questions".

[Richard Damon]

Then you are admtting that you can't do the work in the formal system,
so any claim you make about anything IN the system is just invalid.

IF you want to try to change the definitions, you need to just redrive
the system from the ground up with your new rules. (I doubt you can do
that).

Or, you could try to get some help by trying to clearly explain the
error in the fundamental rules you think are wrong.

Note, to do that you need to actually show the real problem that the
rule is causing.

Your idea that undecidable problem are actually invalid isn't going to
fly, as many of the undecidable problems are actually quite important.

The fact that you can't understand that, means you are going to have a
hard time convincing others or your ideas.

>
> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.

You have very bad professors if they only apply "undeciability" to just
the Halting Problem, as MANY problems are "undecidable".

>
> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>

And, until your provide the names and actual statements, this claim is
worth exactly NOTHING.

[olcott]

Then you are admtting that you can't do the
work in the formal system, so any claim you
make about anything IN the system is just invalid.

That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.

Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS

[Richard Damon]

Maybe in a non-formal system or setting, but in Computability Theory, it
means, and EXACTLY means that there does not exist a Turing Machine that
can compute the "function".


What "nuances" are you claiming?


Remember also, that the "Function" mentioned is nothing more than a
mathematical mapping of input objects to output values, defined for all
elements of the input domain.

>
> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>

Nope. You still don't understand the meaning of the words.

Completeness, means PRECISELY and nothing more, that all true statements
in the system can be proven in the system.

Incompleteness, thus, means that there exists, at least ONE true
statement in the system that can not be proven in that system.

For Godels proof, that statement is "that there does not exist a natural
number g that satisfies a particular Primative Recursive Relationship"
that was derived in a meta-system of the system, but said PRR is fully
defined in that system.


What is "self-contradictory" of that statement?


Remeber, all the arguments about provability doen't exist in the system,
and "self-contrdiction" is a property in the system being discussed.

Your problem is you don't understand the logic of the proof enough to
understand what the statement actually is.


Go ahead, try to actually answer one of the questions with an actual
logical answer based on FACTS,

My guess is you are going to again, just restate your FALSE claims and
thus prove that you don't actually have any true basis for your claims.

DARE YOU to try to answer.

[Richard Damon]

I will add, that "The results proves something I don't like" is not
grounds for saying something is wrong.

You need to show an ACTUAL contradiction in the system by the
definitions in the system (not something added)

[olcott]

[Richard Damon]

So, as predicted, you couldn't answer any of the question put to you and
you just repeated your LIE agian, thus proving you argument has no basis.

You still don't understand that "self-contradictory" needs to refer to
"self", but nothing in the Halting Problem proof actually "refered" to
"self"

And that the question possed, does have a single correct answer, so it
can't be "contridtory".

Thus proving you are just a LIAR.

Your refusal to actually answer any of the errors pointed out is just
hammering nails into the coffin of your argument, which died years ago,
and you have spent your last years just beating a dead red herring.

[olcott]

Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
correct.

If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.

[Richard Damon]

You haven't given a "correct" reason, but only things based on incorrect
definitions, as are unsound,

And anonymous supports without even quoting exactly what they agreed to
just makes you look foolish

My guess is you aren't going to quote what they actually said as you
know you are misinterpreting statements and don't want that pointed out,
like you error with Prof Sipser.

>
> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>

That is what YOU are doing. I give reasons based on the actual
definitions, and logical argument. You give "reasons" based on your
incorrect definitions that you can not support, and don't even try to
build an Formal Argument.

If you want to get out of unsound not-rebutting mode, maybe you should
try to answer some of the questions put to you.

Until then, you are just proving yourself to be the idiot.

[olcott]

When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.

When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
has enormous consequences:

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

We had to boil it down to its sound bite form to
sharply focus attention on a single point so that
rebuttals based on the strawman deception or ad
hominem are easily seen as having no basis what-so-ever.

[Richard Damon]

It doesn't take more than a glance to see your errors.

Your failure to actually point out an error in my statements says that
you don't even attempt an "incorrect rebuttal" but are just accepting
the errors I have pointed out as actual errors.

YOU seem to be the one just taking a glance at MY words.

You do seem to project a lot of your errors on others, just like Trump.

You actually remind me a lot of him, even though you claim to be
fighting him, you use the similar methods to those you claim to be
trying to fight.

>
> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
> has enormous consequences:
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

Except that you haven't show how it CAN be true, since there actually is
no "self-reference" to lead to the "self-contradictory" question.

Thus, it can't be true.

If you want to try to show an actual contradiction in the QUESTION
ITSELF go ahead and try.

THe problem is that the actual question has an definite provable answer,
so it gets very hard to show that to be "contradictiory"

Remember, each H gives a DIFFERENT question, as it creates a DIFFERENT
progran D to decide on, and for each of those D(D)'s there is a correct
answer.

If a given H(D,D) returns false, saying it predicts its input to be
non-halting, then we can show that D(D) will in fact be halting, so
there is no oppertunithy for the answer to have a contradiction.

Remember, the question says nothing about what the decider actually
does, only what answer it need to be correct, without requiring it to be
correct (that just means that this machine isn't actually a correct halt
decider).

This is the flaw in your argument, you somehow want to force that the
Halting Function must actually be decidable, and THAT assumption leads
to the contradiction, whcih shows that such an assumption must be incorrect.

>
> We had to boil it down to its sound bite form to
> sharply focus attention on a single point so that
> rebuttals based on the strawman deception or ad
> hominem are easily seen as having no basis what-so-ever.
>

No, trying to over simplify it into a "sound byte" is removing any of
your ability to actual try to express your logic.

Saying a short LIE doesn't help your cause.

[olcott]

Except that you haven't show how it CAN be true,
since there actually is no "self-reference" to
lead to the "self-contradictory" question.

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

No computer program H can correctly predict what
another computer program D will do when D has been
programmed to do the opposite of whatever H says.

The fact that D contradicts both values that every
corresponding H can possibly return proves that input
D is isomorphic to a self-contradictory question for H.

If D would only contradict one of these values then D
would be a contradictory question. Since D contradicts
both of these values that makes D self-contradictory.

[Richard Damon]

No, and you are just proving you have the maturity of a two year old for
repeating the same LIES.

What is wrong with the answer that I have give you.

Remember, the "correct answer" to the Halting quesiton doesn't need to
be the result given by H, and the correct answer of "Halting" (for the
H's you have proposed) IS the correct answer.

>
> No computer program H can correctly predict what
> another computer program D will do when D has been
> programmed to do the opposite of whatever H says.

So you agree with the Halting Theorem

>
> The fact that D contradicts both values that every
> corresponding H can possibly return proves that input
> D is isomorphic to a self-contradictory question for H.

What BOTH. That shows your stupidity.

A given H can only give ONE value for a given input, the value its
algorithm produces.

>
> If D would only contradict one of these values then D
> would be a contradictory question. Since D contradicts
> both of these values that makes D self-contradictory.
>

Nope, it only needs to counterdict the ONE answer that this H can give.

Your logic just proves you totally don't umderstand what a computer
program is.

And it prove you to be a total IDIOT.

TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG.

Show me an H that could possible give me both answers FOR THE EXACT SAME
PROGRAM.

TRY IT, I DOUBLE DARE YOU.

You are just a chicken idiot,

You are just digging a deeper hole to bury your stupidity into.

[olcott]

*A self-contradictory question is defined as*
Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.

Every D derives a self-contradictory question for every
corresponding H in that:
(a) when each H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) when each H that says its D will loop it halts.

[olcott]

*A self-contradictory question is defined as*
Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.

For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that:
(a) When each H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) When each H that says its D will loop it halts.

[olcott]

For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that

(a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
*Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*

[olcott]

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

*A self-contradictory question is defined as*
Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.

[Richard Damon]

And it doesn't for the ACTUAL question

When we ask "Does the computation described by the input Halt" by
calling H(D,D), we are asking about this particular D(D).

Since H(D,D) has a DEFINED value value for the SPECIFIC H, we can find
the behavior of the SPECIFIC D (designed for that H) when invoked as D(D).

Thus, the actual question has a definite answer and you claim is wrong,
and because you have been told this many times, it becomes a LIE as you
should know better. Perhaps it shows you to be a TOTAL IDIOT.

>
> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that:
> (a) When each H says that its D will halt, D loops
> (b) When each H that says its D will loop it halts.
>
>

Right, so if the H that this D was built on says that D will Halt, then
the correct answer Non-Halting, and if the H that this D was built on
syas that D will not Halt, then the correct answer is Halting.

Since "The H that this D was built on" is a specific computation, it has
a definite answer so we know which branch of the logic to use, and which
answer is correct.

Thus, there IS a correct answer.

You don't seem to understand this fundamental fact about programs, that
for a given program we have deterministic results from it.

You can't talk about a SPECIFIC H giving both answers, as it just can't,
it will only give one.

When you start to say "for every H" we are introducing not a single
question to answer, but a set of questions to answer, and the answers do
not need to be the same.

Each of those questions HAS an answer, so NONE of the questions were
contradictory.

It seems that the "self' that you are trying to describe is some
"infinite set", but the actual question isn't about a "set of inputs"
but about a specific input, so your argument is just another stupid
category error.

It does turn out that your "self-contradictory" question is sort of like
one asked in the proof, and maybe that is what is getting you confused.
The proof asks if we can make an H that could answer a machine of this
form, and the contradiction that comes out when we assume we can, shows
that we can't make an H to answer an input formed this way. This shows
that the problem is uncomputable, not self-contradictory, as questions
about computability to NOT imply that the function is, in fact, computable.

You are just, AGAIN, showing your ignorance of the topic, and logic in
general.

You just continue to spout off your lies about your incorrect logic, and
never answer the errors pointed out.

I sort of suspect the issue is you are too ignorant of the subject to
understand the corretions being given, and to you they sound just like
babbling, so you just act like your two-year-old self and just repeat
your errors over and over because you are incapable of learning what
things mean (perhaps in part due to self-inflicted deliberate ignorance).

[Richard Damon]

So?

For each D, and the question is ALWAYS about a specific D, there is a
correct answer, so the question is not contradictory.

The fact that for every H there is some input that it gets wrong, just
shows that no H is correct for every input, and thus no H is a correct
decider and thus the problem is uncomputable.

For the problem to be contradictory, there would need to be a SPECIFIC
input that didn't have an answer to the question, but every specific
input has a specific answer, it just isn't the answer that the specific
H that this specific input was built on gives.

You are just making the same category error of confusing sets of
deciders and inputs for a single input.

I guess to you an large set of somethings is the exact same things as on
of the somethings.

That is that same as saying that everyone is the same person.

That is the stupidity of your logic.

[Richard Damon]

[olcott]

*proving that this is literally true*

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

[Richard Damon]

And since of a specifiec D, based on a specific H, that H will only
answer one of the ways, there IS a correct answer, as D has definite
behavior,

>
> *proving that this is literally true*
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>

Nope, since each specific question HAS a correct answer, it shows that,
by your own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"

You are just proving your stupidity by repeating this category error.

[olcott]

Nope, since each specific question HAS
a correct answer, it shows that, by your
own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"

*That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
*That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
*That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*

There does not exist a solution to the halting problem because
*for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
*for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
*for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*

there exists a D that makes the question:
Does your input halt?
a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, How is your statement that "Self-Contradictiory questions have no
correct answer" plus the fact that the quesiton is about a SPECIFIC
input being asked about (and each input is thus a seperate question to
answer) and the fact that for each of these input, there is a correct
answer.

We thus have the logical argument

Define A: The problem is self-contradictory
Define B: The Problem has no correct answer.

Your statement: A -> B

Because every question does have a correct answer, we have ~B

From the definition of Implication

A -> B
~B

Therefore ~A

so the problem can not be self-contradictory.

Don't you understand basic logic?

>
> There does not exist a solution to the halting problem because
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>
> there exists a D that makes the question:
> Does your input halt?
> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.
>
>

Where does it say that a Turing Machine must exsit to do it?

That is the definition of Decidability/Computability of the Problem, not
validity of the problem.

The issue is that for every instance D, there IS a correct answer, and
thus the problem is VALID.

As shown above, your claim that the problem is self-contradictory has
been prove FALSE, and thus your whole logic turns unsound.

(As seems to be your whold mind).

[olcott]

Where does it say that a Turing
Machine must exsit to do it?

*The only reason that no such Turing Machine exists is*

For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
(a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
*Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*

*therefore*

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

[Richard Damon]

Nope. UNSOUND logic (from an unsound mind) as has been explained, and
your refusal to understand it shows your stupidity, and ignorance of how
logic works.

Your repeating it shows that you have the maturity of a Two-year-old.

The issue that you ignore is that you are confalting a set of questions
with a question, and are baseing your logic on a strawman, which by your
own statements make you a stinking lying bastard.

The ACTUAL question, is does the SPECIFIC input to the decider,
decscribe a SPECIFIC computation that will Halt in finite time when
performed. For ANY of these Ds your reference above, there IS an answer
for that D, and thus the question has an answer and is valid and thus
can not be "self-contradictory".

Your "Strawman Question" of what can H return to get the right answer,
is just that, a Strawman question, and in fact, an illogical question,
as a given H can only return on answer for a given input, the one that
its algorithm will generate. It giving some other answer is just
self-contradictory.

The fact that you keep repeating this LIE just shows that you are either
a total idiot incapable of understanding even the basics of logic, or
that you are just a pathological liar that has gas-lite himself into
believing his own lies.

Either way, you have disqualified your self from being a reliable source
to look to about questions of logic.

Sorry, that is just the facts.

Your refusal to actually try to deal with the errors pointed out just
shows your utter lack of intelligence in this field, and your moral
bankrupcy by your attempt to use a Big Lie to press your point.

[olcott]

The issue that you ignore is that you are
confalting a set of questions with a question,
and are baseing your logic on a strawman,

It is not my mistake. Linguists understand that the
context of who is asked a question changes the meaning
of the question.

This can easily be shown to apply to decision problem
instances as follows:

In that H.true and H.false are the wrong answer when
D calls H to do the opposite of whatever value that
either H returns.

Whereas exactly one of H1.true or H1.false is correct
for this exact same D.

This proves that the question: "Does your input halt?"
has a different meaning across the H and H1 pairs.

[Richard Damon]

It *CAN* if the question ask something about the person being questioned.

But it *CAN'T* if the question doesn't in any way reffer to who you ask.

If you ask what is 1 + 2? it doesn't matter who you ask, the answer is
always 3.

If you ask what is the third planet around the star "Sol", the answer is
always Earth.

If you ask "if the specific program D, based on the specific program H
that when invoked as H(D,D) will return false, when invoked as D(D) will
Halt?", the answer is always True.

If you ask "if the specific program D, based on the specific program H
that when invoked as H(D,D) will return True, when invoked as D(D) will
Halt?", the answer is always False.

Thus, since any instance of the halting problem in your set is one of
those last two questions, there is alwaysa correct answer to the
question, so THAT question is not "Contradictory", as "Contradictory
Questions" never have a correct answer. (from your own definition)

>
> This can easily be shown to apply to decision problem
> instances as follows:
>
> In that H.true and H.false are the wrong answer when
> D calls H to do the opposite of whatever value that
> either H returns.

Nope, because H CAN only go to one of H.false or H.true based on its
programing.

THAT being the wrong answer doesn't make the problem invalid.

You are just DECEPTIVELY assuming a property of H that just doesn't exist.

Note, An H1 that goes to H1.true when given D1 is a different program
AND a different input then the H2 that goes to H2.false when given D2

So, you can't treat this as the same question to try to show that you
have a contradiction.

>
> Whereas exactly one of H1.true or H1.false is correct
> for this exact same D.

Yes, ONE of the answers would have been correct for the D given.

It will be the one that the H that D was built on didn't go to.

THAT is valid, and results in a valid question.

>
> This proves that the question: "Does your input halt?"
> has a different meaning across the H and H1 pairs.
>

Nope. Remember, to compare the questions "Does your input Halt?" you
need to given them the exact same input,

A given input D is built on one SPECIFIC H, not whatever H we are giving
the input to.

Remember also, the ACTUAL question is: "Does the machine represented by
your input Halt?" The D in the input has specific behavior, and thus the
actual answer for does D(D) Halt is defined, and the same for all
deciders given this exact same D.

Note, this is why Linz uses the ^ notation. Given a decider by what ever
name, we can make the ^ program from it, thus H1 is given H1^, H2 is
given H2^ and thus it is clear that each different decider has a
different input.

You are just being deceptive trying to call all the different inputs by
the same name. That or you are just too dumb to understand the error in
doing so,

I will challange you to write an actual program that meets the
requirements of a computation that can change its behavior based on who
is deciding on it.

Note, with your example "H/D" program, the H that D calls is part of the
definition of D, so when you give it to a decider, you need to give to
said decider.

You are just proving your utter stupidity by repeating factually
incorrect claims with no backing other than the clearly flawed reasoning.

If you want to show my reasoning is incorrect, quote the message and
show the actual logical error in the statement (not just that you think
it is wrong)

[olcott]

It *CAN* if the question ask something about
the person being questioned.

But it *CAN'T* if the question doesn't in any
way reffer to who you ask.

D calls H thus D DOES refer to H
D does not call H1 therefore D does not refer to H1

[Richard Damon]

The QUESTION doesn't refer to the person being asked?

That D calls H doesn't REFER to the asker, but to a specific machine.

Thus, nothing in the question refers to the asker.

Does "What is Joe Blows age?" depend on who you are asking? Even if you
are asking Joe Blow?

NO.

So, you are just continuing to prove your stupidity.

[olcott]

The QUESTION doesn't refer to the person
being asked?

That D calls H doesn't REFER to the asker,
but to a specific machine.

For the H/D pair D does refer to the specific
machine being asked: Does your input halt?
D knows about and references H.

For the H1/D pair D does not refer to the specific
machine being asked: Does your input halt?
D does not know about or reference H1.

If these things were not extremely difficult to
understand they would have been addressed before
publication in 1936.

[Richard Damon]

Nope. The question does this input representing D(D) Halt does NOT refer
to any particular decider, just what ever one this is given to.

>
> For the H1/D pair D does not refer to the specific
> machine being asked: Does your input halt?
> D does not know about or reference H1.
>
> If these things were not extremely difficult to
> understand they would have been addressed before
> publication in 1936.
>

They are only "exteremly difficult to understand" because they are FALSE
statements,

You are just too stupid to understand that the Halting question is:

"Does the computation represented by the input Halt?" doesn't have
ANYTHING in it that refers to the machine doing the deciding, and the
input being represented also doesn't refer to the machine doing the
deciding, but only a particular decider that it is designed to foil.

Just be cause we give it to that one, doesn't make it "refer" to the one
being asked.

You are just FAILING basic logic theory, because you are showing
yourself to be a total idiot.

Please find references for you "claims" and definition that are reliable
sources.

[olcott]

Nope. The question does this input representing
D(D) Halt does NOT refer to any particular decider,
just what ever one this is given to.

*You can ignore that D calls H none-the-less when D*
*calls H this does mean that D <is> referencing H*

The only way that I can tell that I am proving my point
is that rebuttals from people that are stuck in rebuttal
mode become increasingly nonsensical.

[Richard Damon]

CALLING H doesn't REFER to the decider deciding it.

Note key difference, a Turing machine can have a copy of the code for
another machine, but it doesn't "Refer" to it. as any changes to that
machine after making the first machine doesn't change it.

That is the key point you miss.

D has the code for the H that you are claiming to give the right value,
when you try to vary it to prove something, that DOESN'T change D, as D
had a copy of the original code of H, not a "reference" to H,

Also, D has a copy of the code of a very specific H, and if you give D
to a different decider, that doesn't change what D does.

Thus the behavior of D(D) is NOT dependent on the machine that is
deciding it, and thus, the answer to the question "Does the machine
represented by the input halt?" can't change based on the decider.

That is like saying that for most machine 1+2 = 3, but for some, it
might be correct to say 1+2 = 4.

YOU FAIL.

You are showing you just don't understand basic English even, let alone
the technical language of Computability Theory or Logic.

You are just proving you are too Stupid to understand what is being
talked about.

[olcott]

"CALLING H doesn't REFER to the decider deciding it."

Sure it does with H(D,D) D is calling the decider deciding it.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, D is calling the original H, no matter WHAT decider is deciding it.

Coincidence is NOT "Reference"

The computation of D(D) can be given to ANY decider, and it always will
use the H that it was originally defined for.

So, it does not "Reference" the decider deciding it. It uses the decider
it was defined for.

So, it seems you still don't understand what it means to "Refer to the
Decider Deciding it".

Just becuase we happen to have the same decider there doesn't mean it
was referenced.

IT seems you just don't understand what a reference is.

For example

THe code

x = 1;
y = 1;

does not leave y with a "reference" to X, but you seem to think it does,

[olcott]

Nope, D is calling the original H, no matter
WHAT decider is deciding it.

Duh? calling the original decider when
the original decider is deciding it

Because the halting problem and Tarski Undefinability
(attempting to formalize the notion of truth itself)
are different aspects of the same problem:

My same ideas can be used to automatically divide
truth from disinformation so that climate change
denial does not cause humans to become extinct.

Are you going to perpetually play head games?

[Richard Damon]

Which doesn't mean the problem has a REFERENCE, because code it uses
doesn't change.

I guess you DO think that the following code make Y a referece to X

x = 1;
y = 1;

Which proves your stupidity.

>
> Because the halting problem and Tarski Undefinability
> (attempting to formalize the notion of truth itself)
> are different aspects of the same problem:

So? Where does "Because" apply here.

>
> My same ideas can be used to automatically divide
> truth from disinformation so that climate change
> denial does not cause humans to become extinct.
>

But clearly it isn't as you are spreading disinformation, as has been
proven.

> Are you going to perpetually play head games?
>

No, I will continue to point out actual Truth.

YOU are the one playing Head Games.

TO be a "Reference" it needs to always end up using the thing
referenced, which ish't what happens here.

You are just showing how IGNORANT you are of basic facts.

How can you possible think you can determine what is truth when you
continue to base you arguments on LIES.

Or, is your intent to get rid of "Disinformation" by just saying it
doesn't exist because anything we want to be true we can make true.

That seems to be the basis of your logic.