I got a reply from Professor Macias [he does not know about Turing machines]

[immibis]

I got a reply from Professor Macias.

He says in his CDF paper he was not thinking about Turing machines, and
he hopes to understand the Turing machine halting problem one day.

What say you, Olcott?

[olcott]

I only used his paper to augment the other two papers.
You can simply read the other two papers and see that
both Hehner and Stoddart agree that the only reason
the halting problem cannot be solved is that there is
something wrong with it.

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>

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E


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

[immibis]

On 21/02/24 17:40, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 9:43 AM, immibis wrote:
>> I got a reply from Professor Macias.
>>
>> He says in his CDF paper he was not thinking about Turing machines,
>> and he hopes to understand the Turing machine halting problem one day.
>>
>> What say you, Olcott?
>
> I only used his paper to augment the other two papers.
> You can simply read the other two papers and see that
> both Hehner and Stoddart agree that the only reason
> the halting problem cannot be solved is that there is
> something wrong with it.

If you agree the halting problem cannot be solved then what are you
trying to argue in this newsgroup?

[olcott]

As my 2004 link states the halting problem cannot be solved
for the same reason that no one can correctly answer this question:

What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
in dollars and cents?

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E


That incorrect question cannot be correctly answered places no
actual limit on anyone or anything.

[immibis]

On 21/02/24 18:05, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 10:48 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 21/02/24 17:40, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 9:43 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> I got a reply from Professor Macias.
>>>>
>>>> He says in his CDF paper he was not thinking about Turing machines,
>>>> and he hopes to understand the Turing machine halting problem one day.
>>>>
>>>> What say you, Olcott?
>>>
>>> I only used his paper to augment the other two papers.
>>> You can simply read the other two papers and see that
>>> both Hehner and Stoddart agree that the only reason
>>> the halting problem cannot be solved is that there is
>>> something wrong with it.
>>
>> If you agree the halting problem cannot be solved then what are you
>> trying to argue in this newsgroup?
>>
>
> As my 2004 link states the halting problem cannot be solved
> for the same reason that no one can correctly answer this question:
>
> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
> in dollars and cents?

No one can correctly answer this question for the same reason that no
one can answer this questionn: What is the natural number x where x=x+1?

[olcott]

Yet math would say that this proves that the person is stupid
rather than the question is incorrect.

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

[immibis]

Perhaps I will set my reader to automatically delete all messages
containing the words "epistemological antinomy", so that you will be
forced to write something instead of copy-pasting if you want your
messages to be read.

[olcott]

In other words you will censor the direct quote of Gödel
that proves that he is incorrect.

That is the way that a dishonest person provides a rebuttal.
It works very well in Russia.

If you simply acknowledged that I did prove that Gödel
is incorrect instead of simply ignoring what I say I
would have no need to repeat it.

[Richard Damon]

And both show that they don't understand what a "Compuation" is in the
field of "Computation Theory".

[Richard Damon]

On 2/21/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 10:48 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 21/02/24 17:40, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 9:43 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> I got a reply from Professor Macias.
>>>>
>>>> He says in his CDF paper he was not thinking about Turing machines,
>>>> and he hopes to understand the Turing machine halting problem one day.
>>>>
>>>> What say you, Olcott?
>>>
>>> I only used his paper to augment the other two papers.
>>> You can simply read the other two papers and see that
>>> both Hehner and Stoddart agree that the only reason
>>> the halting problem cannot be solved is that there is
>>> something wrong with it.
>>
>> If you agree the halting problem cannot be solved then what are you
>> trying to argue in this newsgroup?
>>
>
> As my 2004 link states the halting problem cannot be solved
> for the same reason that no one can correctly answer this question:
>
> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
> in dollars and cents?

Nope, because the actual queastion of the Halting Question always has an
answer.

So you are just proving you are just an ignorant pathological liar.

>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>
> That incorrect question cannot be correctly answered places no
> actual limit on anyone or anything.
>

But it isn't an incorrect question, YOU are just incorrect, and STUPID.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, the math prove YOU to be stupid, because you don't understand what
he is saying.

You have effectively admitted this by your refusal to show where he
actually does the error in his proof. Likely because you just totally
don't understand the proof, because it is so over your head.

[Richard Damon]

But he ISN'T INCORRECT, because you have effectively admitted that he
didn't do what you say he does because you can't find where he actually
did it.

You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

[olcott]

Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands that
the halting problem is not even coherently specified.

Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.

*My 2004 example of an ill-formed question* (linked above)

What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
in dollars and cents?

*This too cannot be computed*

[Richard Damon]

On 2/21/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:

> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands that
> the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>
> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>
> *My 2004 example of an ill-formed question* (linked above)
> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
> in dollars and cents?
>
> *This too cannot be computed*
>

Both of them have shown they don't understand what "Computation Theory"
is about, or what a "Computation" is in Computation Theory.

Since that is much more a "Mathematical" field than "Computer Science",
having been developed well before the modern computer, that isn't that
surprising for someone who has studied more "Modern" parts of Computer
Science, and not the highly theoretical roots of the field.

You seem to fall into this same category, but seem to not even have the
understanding of modern theory, or of the theory of logic, as you can't
seem to put together even the most basic of arguments without
significant errors in understanding.

You have just been proving your total ignorance of the field, and your
inability to understand what is truth, which has turn you into a
pathological liar.

[olcott]

On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
*Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*

That you can understand that the Liar Paradox is neither true
or false is better than many.

Can you understand that the above question is self-contradictory?

[olcott]

On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Because you already admitted that you understand that the
epistemological antinomy of the Liar Paradox is neither true
nor false I can only reasonably conclude that you never
bothered to pay attention to what an epistemological antinomy is.

> You have effectively admitted this by your refusal to show where he
> actually does the error in his proof. Likely because you just totally
> don't understand the proof, because it is so over your head.

Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
be rejected as semantically unsound. Since I have told you this
fifty times you seem disingenuous at best.

[olcott]

On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

(1) You understand that self-contradictory question are incorrect.
(2) You pretend that you can't see that the halting question is
self-contradictory.
(3) You pretend that don't understand know that epistemological antinomy
means self-contradictory.

Antinomy (Greek αντι-, against, plus νομος, law) literally means the
mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term
often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox or
unresolvable contradiction.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

> But he ISN'T INCORRECT, because you have effectively admitted that he
> didn't do what you say he does because you can't find where he actually
> did it.
>
> You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

[immibis]

On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>
> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands that
> the halting problem is not even coherently specified.

If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting problem is
specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick which variant of the
problem to specify). If you don't understand part of its specification,
ask about it in this group - it will be more constructive than most of
your posts.

> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.

So they can be answered?

If they cannot be answered, then that is an actual limit on what can be
answered.

[olcott]

On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands that
>> the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>
> If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting problem is
> specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick which variant of the
> problem to specify). If you don't understand part of its specification,
> ask about it in this group - it will be more constructive than most of
> your posts.
>
>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>
> So they can be answered?
>

Why do you play so dumb?
Incorrect questions cannot be correctly answered because
there is something wrong with them and you know this already.

> If they cannot be answered, then that is an actual limit on what can be
> answered.

[immibis]

On 22/02/24 06:19, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>
>> If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting problem
>> is specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick which variant
>> of the problem to specify). If you don't understand part of its
>> specification, ask about it in this group - it will be more
>> constructive than most of your posts.

You did not reply to this part.

>>
>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>
>> So they can be answered?
>>
>
> Why do you play so dumb?
> Incorrect questions cannot be correctly answered because
> there is something wrong with them and you know this already. >
>> If they cannot be answered, then that is an actual limit on what can
>> be answered.
>

So this places a limit on what can be answered?

[Richard Damon]

Right

> (2) You pretend that you can't see that the halting question is
> self-contradictory.

No, the ACTUAL Halting question is not "Self-Contradictory"

Your RED HERRING / STRAWMAN question is.

So you are just proving that you base your arguments on lie.

> (3) You pretend that don't understand know that epistemological antinomy
> means self-contradictory.

Nope, I fully understand that, I also understand, what you don't seem
to, that they also have valid structure and syntax.

>
> Antinomy (Greek αντι-, against, plus νομος, law) literally means the
> mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term
> often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox or
> unresolvable contradiction.
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

Right, epistemological antinomies are statements which can not have a
truth value.

They DO have syntax and structure, and that can be used in a proof.

You just don't understand how Godel could validly use that part of an
epistemological Antinomy to build a valid poof, because you are just too
STUPID.

And you admit you lie about it be not showing where he actually does a
wrong thing with one of them.

[Richard Damon]

Nope. YOU have never read what I have said.

YOU are too stupid to understand logic.

YOU have gas-lite yourself into beleiving your lies.

>
>> You have effectively admitted this by your refusal to show where he
>> actually does the error in his proof. Likely because you just totally
>> don't understand the proof, because it is so over your head.
>
> Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
> be rejected as semantically unsound. Since I have told you this
> fifty times you seem disingenuous at best.
>

Nope, he did.

YOU just don't uderstand what he did, and you have admitted it by
failing to point out where he actually did what you claim he did

Proing that you are just a pathological liar.

[Richard Damon]

Of course.

Your problem is that the ACTUAL halting question is not like that, only
your strawman variant which isn't a valid transform, in part, because it
it mased on a misundestanding of the nature of computations.

Thus, your whole aregument is just based on intentional lies,
intentional because the error has been clearly explained and you have
just ignored the error, thus removing the "honest error" for the situation.

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE A PATHOLOGICAL LYING IDIOT.

[Richard Damon]

On 2/22/24 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>
>> If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting problem
>> is specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick which variant
>> of the problem to specify). If you don't understand part of its
>> specification, ask about it in this group - it will be more
>> constructive than most of your posts.
>>
>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>
>> So they can be answered?
>>
>
> Why do you play so dumb?
> Incorrect questions cannot be correctly answered because
> there is something wrong with them and you know this already.

And there is nothing incorrect about the question:

Does the Computation described by this input Halt?

The only way that it can be "incorrect" is if it doesn't describe a
Computation, and the way this input was built, that can only happen if
the "Halt DEcider" isn't a Computation, and thus can't be a Decider.

So, your claim of an incorrect question just proves that you have lied
that you H is actually a Computation.

Good luck LIAR.