Purpose of this group?

[Dan Cross]

What is the purpose of this group?

From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
cranks.

Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
obvious?

Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.

- Dan C.

[olcott]

Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting

*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340

*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[immibis]

Found the party pooper. It's not like anyone else is trying to talk
about anything else - most of Usenet is dead - if you don't find this
funny then set your client to automatically ignore all subthreads
started by him.

[immibis]

no they did not

[olcott]

*Here are the details of how they did*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

[immibis]

This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical. It
is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because they
can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.

The halting problem is not about specifications, or context-dependent
functions. It is simply about whether a Turing machine/input pair has a
finite configuration sequence.

[olcott]

*In other words you see how these professors agree with me*

[Mikko]

On 2024-02-12 01:22:35 +0000, Dan Cross said:

> What is the purpose of this group?
>
> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
> cranks.

What other purpose would you want to use this group?

--
Mikko

[Dan Cross]

Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?

Sadly, this does not appear possible. I see that this thread
has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
specious claims.

- Dan C.

[Ross Finlayson]

Why is "classical quasi-modal logic" with "ex falso quodlibet
plus material implication" considered so usual when all computer
"logic" is implemented with NAND gates and the "Boolean lattice",
not the "Compte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
classical quasi-modal logic"?

I think that what's called "classical logic" today should
be called "classical _quasi-modal_ logic" to better reflect
what it is, and that De Morgan's rules or "the classical
logic with direct implication and a functional contrapositive"
has better title to "classical logic", the term.


Wondering whether "LLM" is "large language model"
or "Lots'o LISP Macros".

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:14:43 -0000 (UTC)
cr...@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> >What other purpose would you want to use this group?
>
> Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?
>
> Sadly, this does not appear possible. I see that this thread
> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
> specious claims.

I think it's perfectly possible. Start a serious thread about some
theoretical computer science issue and chances are good that you will get
replies. But without the Olcott threads , I consider most likely that this
group would become a wasteland like comp.programming where anything on
topic gets posted very rarely and various random vandals see the empty group
and post assorted random nonsense. At least the Olcott discussions are on
topic.

As for this thread devolving , what were you hoping for this thread ? I'm
sure that the people responding to Olcott are perfectly aware that they have
the option to stop but continue responding for whatever reasons they have.
There was a thread some months ago (started by Ben Bacarisse if I remember
correctly) urging people to stop responding (so much) to Olcott but it didn't
achieve anything.

Finally , if you start a thread mentioning Olcott , it's only natural he
will jump in.

[olcott]

Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting

*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340

*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

*Here are the details of how they agreed with me*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

[olcott]

[olcott]

ChatGPT4 Large Language Model https://openai.com/gpt-4

[Mikko]

On 2024-02-12 13:14:43 +0000, Dan Cross said:

> In article <uqcute$1fhr2$1...@dont-email.me>, Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-12 01:22:35 +0000, Dan Cross said:
>>
>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>
>>> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>> cranks.
>>
>> What other purpose would you want to use this group?
>
> Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?
> Sadly, this does not appear possible.

You can always start a serious discussion. Of course, it is possible
that nobody else wants to discuss seriously. But it is also possible
that someone does. You are likely to get replies that do not contribute
to the serious discussion but you needn't to respond to them or even
to read them more than needed to determine their unimportance.

--
Mikko

[wij]

I think what olcott said is perfectly on topic. No one is forced to
join olcott's thread. Besides, anyone discussed with olcott should
have gained something.
If you don't like it, you can always start a new thread anytime.

[immibis]

They don't agree with you.

[immibis]

You are libelling two PhD computer science professors.

[Ross Finlayson]

news:comp.ai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language)
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/307824.307853
https://alt.folklore.computers.narkive.com/McLBxGRD/the-arthur-t-murray-mentifex-faq
https://code.google.com/archive/p/mindforth/wikis/UserManual.wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Interchange_Format


http://rfinlayson.blogspot.com/2009/06/notional-coding.html

https://trec.nist.gov/
https://aclanthology.org/events/acl-2022/



"The terms kook and crank may often be used pejoratively,
but they do have a fairly objective, well-defined meaning.
Simply put, a crank or kook is someone who believes or
pretends to have knowledge of some subject, actively seeks
to speak authoritatively about it, and makes unsupported
claims that outrageously conflict with widely accepted
scientific results."
-- http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html#x1-340004.4


https://www.yudkowsky.net/
https://intelligence.org/



You know I've read Norvig and Russell's "Artificial Intelligence",
which is sort of a model of a inference engine, is all,
not really saying what goes into it, but, I felt that
I got more out of Haugeland's "Artificial Intelligence",
then there's Herbert Simon and so on, and remember also that
for a long AI was just called "bots", like CMU,
or "agents", like UMBC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haugeland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artificial_intelligence_researchers


Lots'o LISP Macros

[olcott]

Any idea can be a mere naysayer.

Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
problem cannot be solved only because there is something
wrong with it.

The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)

[olcott]

That is libel against me.

[olcott]

That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.

Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt
test exists and then provides S as an example of a program
that the test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all.
It is not even a conceptual object, and this is due to
inconsistencies in the specification of the halting function.
(Stoddart: 2017)

[immibis]

[immibis]

If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then the
halting problem is proven unsolvable.

[immibis]

On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.

This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is anything
wrong with the halting problem.

[olcott]

It is also equally impossible to determine whether
"this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
math and computer science don't understand that this
impossibility does not limit math or computer science.

[olcott]

You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
prove that it is factual.

*Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
*wrong with the halting problem specification*

The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
program at all. It is not even a conceptual object, and

this is due to *inconsistencies in the specification* of
the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017:8)

[3] Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

[immibis]

On 12/02/24 21:41, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
>>> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
>>> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
>>> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
>>
>> This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is
>> anything wrong with the halting problem.
>
> You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
> prove that it is factual.

You can claim that it is factual yet the actual facts prove that it is
unfactual.

> *Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
> *wrong with the halting problem specification >

> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
> halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
> a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
> program at all. It is not even a conceptual object, and
> this is due to *inconsistencies in the specification* of
> the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017:8)
>

When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S is
a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
machine. There are no "hidden criteria".

[immibis]

"This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.

[olcott]

The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
whether Stoddart agrees with me, that the halting problem cannot
be solved because there is something wrong with it

*inconsistencies in the specification*
says there is something wrong with it.

[olcott]

"this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
incorrect notion of undecidability.

[immibis]

On 12/02/24 22:45, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S
>> is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
>> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>>
>
> The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
> whether Stoddart agrees with me,

How very self-centered of you. No matter what you think about Stoddart,
the fact remains: S is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria

for being a Turing machine. There are no "hidden criteria".

> that the halting problem cannot
> be solved because there is something wrong with it

There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except that
they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to solve them.

> *inconsistencies in the specification*
> says there is something wrong with it.

That you do not understand the halting problem does not prove there is
an inconsistency in it.

[immibis]

"this sentence is not true" is not math.

[Ben Bacarisse]

cr...@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:

> What is the purpose of this group?
>
> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
> cranks.

As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences. (1) I
tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
form of nonsense was being espoused. (2) I stopped.

> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
> obvious?
>
> Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.

It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.

--
Ben.

[olcott]

The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)

COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*

20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

[olcott]

On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 22:45, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S
>>> is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
>>> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>>>
>>
>> The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
>> whether Stoddart agrees with me,
>
> How very self-centered of you. No matter what you think about Stoddart,
> the fact remains: S is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria
> for being a Turing machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>
>> that the halting problem cannot
>> be solved because there is something wrong with it
>
> There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except that
> they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to solve them.
>

According to that reasoning I can correctly determine that you
must be stupid when you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

I had forgotten that I came up with the idea
of ill-formed question all the way back in 2004.

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

>> *inconsistencies in the specification*
>> says there is something wrong with it.
>
> That you do not understand the halting problem does not prove there is
> an inconsistency in it.
>

That professor Stoddart (and Hehner) agree that
it has *inconsistencies in the specification*
proves that I am not a crank.

[olcott]

Yet this formalized version <is> the basis of Tarski's proof.

(see below for context).
*giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds*

The proof of Tarski's undefinability theorem in this form is again
by reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that an L-formula True(n)

as above existed, i.e., if A is a sentence of arithmetic, then
True(g(A)) holds in N if and only if A holds in N. Hence for all

A, the formula True(g(A)) ⟺ A holds in N. But the diagonal
lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence, by

giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds
in N. This is a contradiction QED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem

[Richard Damon]

But he is wrong, because S HAS been completely specified.

[Richard Damon]

On 2/12/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> cr...@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>
>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>> cranks.
>>
>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>
>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>> obvious?
>>>
>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>
>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>
>
> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.

In other words, you fail to prove you statement by using the FALLACY of
appeal to "authority", especially when the claimed "authority" doesn't
have any actual credentials in the field you are using them as an "expert"

[olcott]

*I just proved that I am not a crank dipshit*

>>
>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner  (2011)
>> COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
>> Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
>> Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>
>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
>> On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>  > PREMISES:
>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>  >
>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>  > …
>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>  >
>> USENET Message-ID:
>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>
>

[Mikko]

On 2024-02-13 00:55:06 +0000, olcott said:

> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>
> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
> COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
> Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
> Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>
> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

They are not independent. Stoddart's article is based on Hehner's
earlier articles. Hehner's article is partly based on Hehner's
articles and discussions with Storddart.

--
Mikko

[Fred. Zwarts]

Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:

> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> cr...@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>
>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>> cranks.
>>
>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>
>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>> obvious?
>>>
>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>
>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>
>
> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>

If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it prove?
For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who seem to
defend it.

[olcott]

Stoddart validates Hehner's research with his own analysis.
Their research is independent of mine and validates my 2004
statement. THIS PROVES THAT I AM NOT A CRANK.

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic

*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*

[olcott]

IT PROVES THAT I AM NOT A CRANK

[olcott]

On 2/13/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

That their reasoning is sound utterly defeats all baseless claims
to the contrary. It is an easily verified fact that the halting
problem specification <is> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.

The strongest rebuttal of this has been "no its not" utterly
baseless assertion.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox question.
Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???

Every single yes/no question that has been intentionally defined to have
no correct yes/no answer IS WRONG --- IS WRONG --- IS WRONG --- IS WRONG

[Fred. Zwarts]

Op 13.feb.2024 om 16:33 schreef olcott:

Olcott does not understand that it is not one question. Even after it
has been explained to him so many times. For the Ĥ that answers 'no', it
is a different question that for the Ĥ that answers 'yes', but both give
the wrong answer.

[olcott]

I and professor Hehner both understand that it <is> one
question that has been intentionally defined such that
both yes and no are the wrong answer.

All rebuttals have had the totally baseless form of merely
dogmatically asserting disagreement.

Because it is an easily verified fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:

Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

*All rebuttals are either foolish or dishonest*

> Even after it
> has been explained to him so many times. For the Ĥ that answers 'no', it
> is a different question that for the Ĥ that answers 'yes', but both give
> the wrong answer.

[Fred. Zwarts]

Op 13.feb.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:

Han is asked the question whether Dan halts; Hah is asked the question
whether Dah halts. Dan is not Dah, so these ARE different questions.
Most people understand it when it is repeated two or three times, but it
seems olcott needs 1000, or 10000 more times to understand it.

A simple denial is not a rebuttal.

[Ross Finlayson]

On 02/12/2024 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/12/2024 05:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <uqcute$1fhr2$1...@dont-email.me>, Mikko
>> <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:

>>> On 2024-02-12 01:22:35 +0000, Dan Cross said:
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>> cranks.
>>>

>>> What other purpose would you want to use this group?
>>
>> Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?
>>
>> Sadly, this does not appear possible. I see that this thread
>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>> specious claims.
>>
>> - Dan C.
>>
>
> Why is "classical quasi-modal logic" with "ex falso quodlibet
> plus material implication" considered so usual when all computer
> "logic" is implemented with NAND gates and the "Boolean lattice",
> not the "Compte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
> classical quasi-modal logic"?
>
> I think that what's called "classical logic" today should
> be called "classical _quasi-modal_ logic" to better reflect
> what it is, and that De Morgan's rules or "the classical
> logic with direct implication and a functional contrapositive"
> has better title to "classical logic", the term.
>
>
> Wondering whether "LLM" is "large language model"
> or "Lots'o LISP Macros".
>
>


It kind of seems like "the Turing machine has
infinite tapes including both infinite data and
infinite program tapes, or not", vis-a-vis what's
usually for matters of bounds. (Or the order,
the order of the size of the input or how much
time it takes to spigot off a datum.)

There's lots to be said for Chaitin's analysis,
what is the proportion of programs that halt,
what is Chaitin's Omega, is it 85% meaning 1 or
so standard deviations off the mean or is it 50/50,
in the space of all programs with the space of all inputs.


It sort of asks for what "computing" is at all, with
respect to it fundamentally doing work and making information.

Then there's an idea of "what is a model of computing
fundamentally at all", gets into the various notions of
what either generates something, or resolves something,
what are the outer or inner products respectively, of
acts of computation on bodies of information.

So, this talk of Church-Rice and halting, is pretty simple
because all that's sort of the result of the anti-diagonal
argument about the space of words and the space of words,
it's pretty simple that the usual incompleteness proofs
are mostly the same way, vis-a-vis more "concrete" proofs
of usual notions of concreteness of completeness, and also,
what are proportions in resources that variously guarantee
or otherwise make for confidence, satisfaction.

So, fundamental computing science has on the one hand
something like Church-Rice, you know, "give up", and
on the other something like Chaitin resources, "how
much or how often", that also one shouldn't forget
that Goedel first has _completeness_ results of arithmetic,
_then_ incompleteness results, and as to how and why
fundamental computer science theory is all sort of one
little clannish set of ordinary results after Russell.


So, yeah, this sort of Chaitin-Goedel bit, can have a lot
to say, where it is still so that whether a program halts
or doesn't is that it does or doesn't.


Then this is for concrete mathematics to say how so,
instead of non-constructivist ordinary simple would-be
word-counters, to, "give up".


Then there's also that in the bounded of course, it just
takes an arbitrarily larger bounded analysis, to return in
finite time, any finite program's any finite input's
halting or lack thereof, and furthermore its results
both when it does if it does, and, where it's at when it don't.


Bonjour

[olcott]

Since the second "⊢*" specifies the infinite set of
every sequence of state transitions then

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

*Applies to every element of this infinite set*

*Enough with the deceptive shell games already*

[Richard Damon]

No, that claim just shows you to be a LIAR or an idiot. The symbol ⊢*
specifies the 'unlisted' set of steps that this PARTICULAR H goes
through (if it goes to that terminal state).

If you disagree, show where he used YOUR words to describe the notation.

>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> *Applies to every element of this infinite set*

No, Ĥ isn' a 'decoder' so it isn't asked anything.

The requirements are on H.

His wording is the analysis based on the (proven false) assumption that
an H that meets the requirements exist.

Thus, the impossibility of the results, refutes that assumption.

You just don't seem to understand that form of logic.

>
> *Enough with the deceptive shell games already*
>

Yes, will YOU stop lying?

[Richard Damon]

So, what is the age of the person just ONE question, no matter who you
ask it about?

>
> All rebuttals have had the totally baseless form of merely
> dogmatically asserting disagreement.

Nope, your ARGUMENT is totally baseless, built on the mere dogmaticac
assertion of your incorrect ideas.

>
> Because it is an easily verified fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> *All rebuttals are either foolish or dishonest*
>

Nope, that statement is FOOLISH and DISHONEST.

For Ĥ to be asked a question, it needs to have designed to a
specification that asks the quesiton.

Ĥ was designed to have behavior based on the answer IT GOT from H.

H is the machine that is asked a question, not Ĥ.

So, your arguement is just based on LIES.

[immibis]

[immibis]

Well there's your problem, because it isn't.

Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
*different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will show
you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H, which
gets the x86utm D wrong)

[immibis]

Some professors are cranks. It's not usual, but it happens.

[immibis]

On 13/02/24 15:58, olcott wrote:
> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> > PREMISES:
> > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> > was defined to be impossible.

Good so you agree it has no solution.

[immibis]

I thought you were worried about obeying the laws about libel and so on?
Under the laws of Germany, where eternal-september is hosted, you are
now guilty of insulting a person publicly, with a maximum penalty of two
years imprisonment (but let's be real - they would probably just give
you a 100 euro fine instead, and only if you were in Germany).

[immibis]

On 13/02/24 02:46, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 22:47, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>>>>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>>>>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>>>>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
>>>> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.
>>>
>>> "this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
>>> incorrect notion of undecidability.
>>>
>> "this sentence is not true" is not math.
>
> Yet this formalized version <is> the basis of Tarski's proof.

Tarski proved it cannot be formalized.

[immibis]

On 13/02/24 02:43, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except
>> that they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to
>> solve them.
>>
>
> According to that reasoning I can correctly determine that you
> must be stupid when you cannot correctly answer this question:
> What time is it (yes or no)?

What?

[olcott]

It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.

In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
embedded_H returns.

This proves that: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
is an incorrect question thus not limiting anyone or anything.

[olcott]

Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong
answer is the generic model of the notion of an ill-formed question
that I created in 2004.

[Richard Damon]

And the Halting Question, "Does the Computation described by your input
Halt when run?" always has a correct answer. In this case, it is the
opposite of whatever H returns.

Thus, the HALTING QUESTION isn't an ill-formed question, but your
strawman DIFFERENT question is.

So, you are just calling yourself stupid for asking an ill-formed
question to yourself.

[Richard Damon]

Each Ĥ based on each H make a DIFFERENT question, each with a possibly
different answer.

That two different versions of the question have different answers isn't
a problem, but in fact is expected.

>
> In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
> embedded_H returns.

Right, so embedded_H was wrong.

The right answer to the QUESTION (does the machine/input described by
your input Halt when run) exists, and will always be the answer contrary
to what H gives.

>
> This proves that: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> is an incorrect question thus not limiting anyone or anything.
>

But that isn't the question, and isn't even the case in the example.

H is NOT given a description of itself, and Ĥ isn't required to give the
correct answer.

So, you logic has a category error in it.

[olcott]

The solution set is {Yes,no} not the nonsense that you said.

*You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
*You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
*You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*

When at least two PhD computer science professors independently
derive the same view that I proposed in 2024, this proves that
this is not the view of a crank.

>
> Thus, the HALTING QUESTION isn't an ill-formed question, but your
> strawman DIFFERENT question is.
>
> So, you are just calling yourself stupid for asking an ill-formed
> question to yourself.

[olcott]

Each embedded_H was intentionally defined to be contradicted by the
computation that it is contained within thus making the question:

Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

have no correct yes or no answer for every element of every possible Ĥ.

You are still doing better then the current experts in the
field.** The current experts in the field are not sure that
"this sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer.

**The field of truth bearers and semantic entailment.
It seems that these experts merely analyze each others
half-baked ideas and even then they do this with little
understanding. Most of these experts get at least one
key idea exactly right.

[Ross Finlayson]

Hey welcome back Ben, warm regards.

Hey the other day I sort of prompted one
of these new online thinking things or
Google's Gemini about things like
"the natural unit equivalency function
and its range's extent, density, completeness,
and measure" and about things like "ubiquitous
ordinals in extra-ordinary set theory" and
things like "axiomless natural deduction"
and "axiomless geometry", it really sort of
gratified its response, I copied those up
over on sci.math the other day. (It demonstrated
extent, density, completeness, and measure of
the thing.)



Hey have you heard of "The Connection Machine"?
It's basically an idea about the architecture
of computing machines, a usual sort of
"many to many" bit, with this interesting data
structure called the "xector" after "vector",
which is the usual idea of the superscalar
vector or "very large word".

So anyways there's a book about it, called,m
"The Connection Machine", and its bibliography
really points to a lot of usually highly regarded
ideas in mechanical thinking, like Minsky from the '50's.


The idea that Chaitin has the ideas to model the
space of functions that compute vis-a-vis
"one at a time", then makes for sort of relating
how his model language and runtime, illustrates what
is the wedge between language and runtime, with
that being its own sort of model of computation.



Warm regards

[immibis]

> [some nonsense]

>
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> is an incorrect question thus not limiting anyone or anything.

It limits me from creating a Turing machine that decides the halting
problem.

[immibis]

Clearly you have no idea what you are saying.

> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> have no correct yes or no answer

That wasn't the question. It seems like you are dishonestly changing the
question.

[immibis]

Every halting question has a correct yes or no answer.

[olcott]

Clearly you do not understand that rebuttals
that are mere empty assertions are baseless.

>
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>> have no correct yes or no answer
>
> That wasn't the question. It seems like you are
> dishonestly changing the question.
>

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ

Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

The Peter Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking a different
question.

The Peter Linz H was not intentionally defined
to contradict itself.

The Peter Linz Ĥ was not intentionally defined
to contradict itself.

Because these things really are not that hard I am
convinced that your goal is to simply be disagreeable.

[olcott]

Three PhD computer science professors and I disagree.

[Richard Damon]

And you are all WORNG.

More than 3 PhD Computer Science Professors will agree with that statement.

So, if you want to try to count experts, you lose.

[Richard Damon]

Except that NOTHING in the problem is asking Ĥ that.

>
> *You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
> *You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
> *You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*

No, by your stupid remarks like about, you are PROVING that you are.

>
> When at least two PhD computer science professors independently
> derive the same view that I proposed in 2024, this proves that
> this is not the view of a crank.

Nope, it proves that some computer science professors also don't
understand Computation Theory.

That isn't that surprising, since it isn't a core "mainstream" part of
computer science, but more a part of Mathematics.

After all, Computation Theory existed before Computers did, so isn't
based on how they actually work.

[Richard Damon]

So, are you admitting that your Ĥ isn't the Peter Linz Ĥ and thus your
whole claim that you are building a counter example for this proof is
just a LIE?

>
> Because these things really are not that hard I am
> convinced that your goal is to simply be disagreeable.
>

No, it seems YOUR goal is to be just stupidly disagreeable.

[Richard Damon]

So? What does intention of a machine affect wither it is a machine or not?

ALso, Ĥ is NOT defined to answer that question, but just to have BEHAVIOR.

H is the machine being asked a quesition.

The fact that Turing Machine are powerful enough to actually build a
machine that can be contrary to the machine that is designed to be a
decider, is what makes Halting non-computable.

You seem to have a fundamental problem understanding the actual meaning
of technical words, or even what "Requirements" are.

>
> You are still doing better then the current experts in the
> field.** The current experts in the field are not sure that
> "this sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer.
>
> **The field of truth bearers and semantic entailment.
> It seems that these experts merely analyze each others
> half-baked ideas and even then they do this with little
> understanding. Most of these experts get at least one
> key idea exactly right.
>

Nope, YOU are the one who has prove your self uaable to understand basic
concepts.

[olcott]

On 2/14/2024 2:23 PM, immibis wrote:

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ

Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

The Peter Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking a different

question, IT IS NOT ASKING ABOUT ITSELF.

*The Peter Linz H WAS NOT intentionally defined to contradict itself*
*The Peter Linz Ĥ WAS INTENTIONALLY DEFINED TO CONTRADICT ITSELF*

Because these things really are not that hard I am
convinced that your goal is to simply be disagreeable.

[Richard Damon]

WHERE do you get that from?

Who is asking it that question?

Since Ĥ doesn't always halt depending on its input, how is that possible?

Your problem is that H is being asked the quesiton about the behavior of
its input.

This just happens to be a description of the machine calling this
instance of H, but doesn't actually "reference" that machine.

Thus YOU are the one dishonestly changing the question.

>
> The Peter Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking a different
> question, IT IS NOT ASKING ABOUT ITSELF.

So?

>
> *The Peter Linz H WAS NOT intentionally defined to contradict itself*
> *The Peter Linz Ĥ WAS INTENTIONALLY DEFINED TO CONTRADICT ITSELF*

Nope, Ĥ was to contradict H not Ĥ .

I guess you think Joe and Fred are the same person.

>
> Because these things really are not that hard I am
> convinced that your goal is to simply be disagreeable.
>

Nope, but it seems YOUR goal is just to make a fool of yourself.

[olcott]

*Not at all I am merely analyzing the exact same Linz specifications*

// Turing machine H --- M applied to w
// --- Does M halts on w?
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt

// Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
// --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt

*I won't even give you Ĥ until after you understand both versions of H*

[olcott]

*The above is the self-contradictory version of this same question*

// Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
// --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt

[Mikko]

On 2024-02-16 05:42:40 +0000, olcott said:

> // Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt

The conditions after the // are incorrect: H must be applied to a
pair, not just <H> or some other singlet.

> *I won't even give you Ĥ until after you understand both versions of H*

--

Mikko

[Mikko]

On 2024-02-16 03:09:55 +0000, olcott said:

> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

As there is no promise that Ĥ answers any particular question, it
is just your choice to interprete the applicantion of Ĥ to <Ĥ> so.
Consequently, you have no basis ot complain if Ĥ's answer is not
the correct answer to your question.

> The Peter Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking a different
> question, IT IS NOT ASKING ABOUT ITSELF.

Instead, H, when given <Ĥ> <Ĥ>, is required to tell whether
Ĥ, when given <Ĥ>, halts.

> *The Peter Linz H WAS NOT intentionally defined to contradict itself*

True.

> *The Peter Linz Ĥ WAS INTENTIONALLY DEFINED TO CONTRADICT ITSELF*

False. The intent is that Ĥ is a test case that every halt decider
must answer correctly (and therefore the same way as every other
halt decider).

--
Mikko

[olcott]

On 2/16/2024 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-16 05:42:40 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> // Turing machine H ---  H applied to ⟨H⟩
>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>
> The conditions after the // are incorrect: H must be applied to a
> pair, not just <H> or some other singlet.
>

I am merely using different notational conventions that
are easier to understand because they are more conventional.
Linz uses Wm as the finite string Turing machine description
of some arbitrary machine M.

// Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
// --- Does M halt on w?
H.q0 Wm w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
H.q0 Wm w ⊢* H.qn // M applied to w does not halt

I use ⟨M⟩ as the finite string Turing machine description
of the specific machine M.

// Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
// --- Does M halt on w?

H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt

// Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to ⟨M⟩
// --- Does M halt on ⟨M⟩?
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* H.qy // M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Hqn // M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt

// Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩

// --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt

[olcott]

On 2/16/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-16 03:09:55 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>
> As there is no promise that Ĥ answers any particular question, it
> is just your choice to interprete the applicantion of Ĥ to <Ĥ> so.
> Consequently, you have no basis ot complain if Ĥ's answer is not
> the correct answer to your question.
>

When I make it simpler then we do have the promise that H'
(see bottom) necessarily must get the wrong answer no matter
how its wildcard states: ⊢* are encoded.

// Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩

// --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt

Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩

// Linz Turing machine H' --- H' applied to ⟨H'⟩

// --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
H'.q0 ⟨H'⟩ ⟨H'⟩ ⊢* H'.qy ∞ // H' applied to ⟨H'⟩ halts
H'.q0 ⟨H'⟩ ⟨H'⟩ ⊢* H'.qn // H' applied to ⟨H'⟩ does not halt

[Richard Damon]

So, you ADMIT that you are ALTERING the question into a STRAWMAN?

>
> // Turing machine H ---  H applied to ⟨H⟩
> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>
>

And the decision here is based on the behavior of *H* not what Ĥ "is
being asked".

You just don't seem to understand how logic works.

Yes, Ĥ behaves in a manner dependent on the behavior that H generates,
but that doesn't mean Ĥ is being "asked" about that.

When you go to the bathroom, is it because someone ASKED you to do that?

[Richard Damon]

But in both of those, H is defined to be a Halt Decider.

Ĥ isn't, so isn't being asked to do anything.

If a sub-compuation of Ĥ needs to do something the way Ĥ has been
implemented, it does NOT mean that Ĥ was asked to do that.

For instance, if I create a function add3 that adds 3 numbers together,
then add3(a, b, c) is asked to add a + b + c.

If internally, it first adds a to b, and then adds c, we can not say
that we have asked add3 to add a to b as part of its specification, as
it could have done b + c first, and then added a.

In Computation Theory, the details of HOW a computation achieves its
results are not part of its specification, but of its implementation.

At the specification level, we don't get to "peek" into the workings of
the machine, only what goes in, and what comes out when (and if) it halts.

[olcott]

*This syntax has been corrected because H has two parameters*

> // Linz Turing machine H ---  H applied to ⟨H⟩
> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ does not halt

[Richard Damon]

But you still don't understand that H (H) (H) is (potentially) asking an
out of domain questions as the computation represented by (H) (H) would
be H applied to (H), which would be asking about H applied to an empty
string, which isn't the representation of a computation.

Depending on the finer details of your rules, this might be undefined,
or it might be that this final H must reject its input (since
no-computation isn't a Halting Computation, since it never reaches a
final state since it doesn't have final states to reach).

You are just blindly parroting words you just don't understand, not
seeing the non-sense you are spouting.

[Richard Damon]

On 2/16/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-16 03:09:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>
>> As there is no promise that Ĥ answers any particular question, it
>> is just your choice to interprete the applicantion of Ĥ to <Ĥ> so.
>> Consequently, you have no basis ot complain if Ĥ's answer is not
>> the correct answer to your question.
>>
>
> When I make it simpler then we do have the promise that H'
> (see bottom) necessarily must get the wrong answer no matter
> how its wildcard states: ⊢* are encoded.
>
> // Linz Turing machine H ---  H applied to ⟨H⟩
> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>
> Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩
>
> // Linz Turing machine H' ---  H' applied to ⟨H'⟩
> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> H'.q0 ⟨H'⟩ ⟨H'⟩ ⊢* H'.qy ∞ // H' applied to ⟨H'⟩ halts
> H'.q0 ⟨H'⟩ ⟨H'⟩ ⊢* H'.qn     // H' applied to ⟨H'⟩ does not halt
>
>

But again H' (H') (H') leads to asking about H' (H') which leads to
asking about H' applied to an empty tape.

Since an empty tape isn't a description of a computation, that is an
"invalid" input, unless you are assuming universal rejection of invalid
inputs. (Which is one interpretation of deciding)

[Richard Damon]

Which means that you are asking H applied to (H) (H) (H) to determine
the behavior of H (H) (H) which is asked to determine the behavior of
H (H) which is asked to determine the behavior of H applied to an empty
tape.

You just can't ask H about itself, as it consumes input without creating
more.

That is why H^ copies its input, to "undo" the affect of H consuming one
copy as the machine.

And why to properly make this, you really NEED to have this action
preformed, which your version doesn't

[olcott]

On 2/16/2024 11:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

> On 2024-02-16 15:07:17 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/16/2024 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-16 05:42:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> // Turing machine H ---  H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> The conditions after the // are incorrect: H must be applied to a
>>> pair, not just <H> or some other singlet.
>>>
>>
>> I am merely using different notational conventions that
>> are easier to understand because they are more conventional.
>> Linz uses Wm as the finite string Turing machine description
>> of some arbitrary machine M.
>

> Your conventions are not easier to understand. I do understand what
> H applied to <H> <H> means but not what H applied to <H> means.
>

*I rewrote everything*

I am merely using different notational conventions that are easier to
understand because they are more conventional. Linz uses Wm as the
finite string Turing machine description of some arbitrary machine M.

// *Verbatim Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w*

// --- Does M halt on w?
H.q0 Wm w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
H.q0 Wm w ⊢* H.qn // M applied to w does not halt

// *Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w* (different encoding)

// --- Does M halt on w?
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts

H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qn // M applied to w does not halt

// *Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to ⟨M⟩ is own description*
// --- Does M halt on its own Turing Machine Description?

H.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* H.qy // M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts

H.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* H.qn // M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt

I am applying the Linz H' and Linz Ĥ in reverse order first transforming
H into Olcott Ȟ as the one parameter version of Linz H where a machine
is applied to its own Turing machine description.

embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ means H.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ shown above.

// *Olcott Turing machine Ȟ --- M applied to ⟨M⟩ its own description*
// --- Does M halt on its own Turing Machine Description?
Ȟ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy // M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts
Ȟ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt

// *Olcott Turing machine Ȟ --- Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ its own description*
// --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ simply correctly transitions to Ĥ.qy

Linz Turing machine Turing machine Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the self-
contradictory form of Olcott Turing machine Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩

// *Linz Turing machine Ĥ --- Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ its own description*
// --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot correctly transition to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
because Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is self contradictory.

[Mikko]

On 2024-02-16 17:35:12 +0000, olcott said:

> Ȟ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy // M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts

Is Ȟ intended to mean the same as Ĥ?

--
Mikko

[olcott]

embedded_H always means the first state of the Linz H

[immibis]

Show me a sequence that is neither finite nor infinite.

[immibis]

On 15/02/24 01:23, olcott wrote:
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ > Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

It doesn't matter what it is asking. The fact remains:
ActuallyHalts(D,D) ⇔ ¬H(D,D)
That is the only fact I care about, to know whether something solves the
halting problem.


Stipulated definition of the halting problem: H solves the halting
problem if and only if:
∀x (∀y (ActuallyHalts(x,y) ⇔ H(x,y)))

[olcott]

It seems that you still can't grasp the notion of
yes/no questions having no correct yes/no answer.

[olcott]

On 2/16/2024 3:57 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 15/02/24 01:23, olcott wrote:
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ > Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>> Description?
>
> It doesn't matter what it is asking.

If you want to affirm lies as a kind of truth.

[Richard Damon]

And you don't seem to understand that you have to look at the ACTUAL
QUESTION of the problem, and that it isn't about a given machine giving
the right answer, but if the answer exists.

i.e. A given H doesn't give the right answer for H(P,P) for the P built
on it, because (at least for your H) it says P(P) won't halt, when it does.

But since it does halt, there is a right answer, so the question about
what the computation described by the input (which is the Halting
Problem Question) has an answer.

Your modified question, what can H return, is the invalid question, in
part because a given H can only return one answer, the one its
programming says, and it would need to be something else to return a
different one.

The fact that no H can possible be constructed to answer the question
about the input built on itself, isn't a problem, as each H in the set
is being asked about a different input, each of which HAS a correct
answer for the Halting Question, it is just that none of the H's return
the right one.

[Richard Damon]

On 2/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 3:57 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 15/02/24 01:23, olcott wrote:
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ > Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>> Description?
>>
>> It doesn't matter what it is asking.
>
> If you want to affirm lies as a kind of truth.
>

That seems to be your whole point.

To see if you can make lies as a kimd of truth, as in

H is correct saying its input is non-halting even though you agreed that
when we run that input it will halt.

You have ADMITTED that you are trying to lie.

[olcott]

Tarski was too stupid to understand that the Liar Paradox
is not in the domain of any truth predicate.

Gödel was too stupid to understand that epistemological
antinomies are outside of the domain of formal systems of logic.

[Richard Damon]

On 2/16/24 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 3:57 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 15/02/24 01:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ > Do you halt on your own Turing
>>>>> Machine Description?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter what it is asking.
>>>
>>> If you want to affirm lies as a kind of truth.
>>>
>>
>> That seems to be your whole point.
>>
>> To see if you can make lies as a kimd of truth, as in
>>
>> H is correct saying its input is non-halting even though you agreed
>> that when we run that input it will halt.
>>
>> You have ADMITTED that you are trying to lie.
>
> Tarski was too stupid to understand that the Liar Paradox
> is not in the domain of any truth predicate.
>
> Gödel was too stupid to understand that epistemological
> antinomies are outside of the domain of formal systems of logic.
>

Nope, YOU are too stupid to understand what either is saying.

You have admitted that by refusing to point out exactly where they do this.