Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference

[olcott]

On 10/10/2023 6:23 PM, _ Olcott wrote:
> On Friday, June 25, 2004 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-5, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>> yes/no answer to the following question:
>> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>> --
>> Daryl McCullough
>> Ithaca, NY
>
> All linguists know that a question with the exact same words
> can have an entirely different meaning when context is taken
> into account.
>
> In the above case the conext of who is asked the question changes
> the meaning of the question so that both yes and no are the wrong
> answer from Jack.

Jack's question is isomorphic to the halting problem counter-example
where the input D to a halt decider H does the opposite of whatever
halt status that H returns.

--
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 10/10/23 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 6:23 PM, _ Olcott wrote:
>> On Friday, June 25, 2004 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-5, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
>>> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>> --
>>> Daryl McCullough
>>> Ithaca, NY
>>
>> All linguists know that a question with the exact same words
>> can have an entirely different meaning when context is taken
>> into account.
>>
>> In the above case the conext of who is asked the question changes
>> the meaning of the question so that both yes and no are the wrong
>> answer from Jack.
>
> Jack's question is isomorphic to the halting problem counter-example
> where the input D to a halt decider H does the opposite of whatever
> halt status that H returns.
>

Nope, it just shows your ignorance of the whole problem.

In the counter example, H is give the simple question, does H^ applied
to the description of H^ halt or not. No matter WHO or WHAT You ask,
this will have exactly the same answer, the opposite of what H applied
to the description of H^ applied to the description of H.

The answer to this question is independent of who you ask it to. The
fact that H^ just happens to be built on a copy of H is irreverent.

Remember, H is DEFINED to be a definite program, so has definite behavior.

Note, the FUNDAMENTAL difference between Jack and H, Jack is a
volitional being who can take in new data and come up with new behavior,
while H is a FIXED program that will ALWAYS give the same answer when
asked the same question.

You are just PROVING that you don't understand the definition of the
field you are talking about, including things like what is Truth.

[Richard Damon]

On 10/10/23 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:

> On 10/10/2023 6:23 PM, _ Olcott wrote:
>> On Friday, June 25, 2004 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-5, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
>>> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>> --
>>> Daryl McCullough
>>> Ithaca, NY
>>
>> All linguists know that a question with the exact same words
>> can have an entirely different meaning when context is taken
>> into account.
>>
>> In the above case the conext of who is asked the question changes
>> the meaning of the question so that both yes and no are the wrong
>> answer from Jack.
>
> Jack's question is isomorphic to the halting problem counter-example
> where the input D to a halt decider H does the opposite of whatever
> halt status that H returns.
>

I suppose a second comment is that you don't understand the difference
between the behavior of a volitional being and a program.

I don't know if that means you think people have no volition, and are
stuck doing what they are "programmed" to do, possiblely based on an
inference that because YOU don't seem able to actually put together
intelgent thought, that no one can.

Or is it that you just don't understand the nature of programs, and
think that somehow there is a form of "magic" that might allow a
computer program to break out of the rigid deterministic mold that is
computing?

[wij]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:40:04 AM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 6:23 PM, _ Olcott wrote:
> > On Friday, June 25, 2004 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-5, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> >> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> >> yes/no answer to the following question:
> >> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
> >> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
> >> --
> >> Daryl McCullough
> >> Ithaca, NY
> >
> > All linguists know that a question with the exact same words
> > can have an entirely different meaning when context is taken
> > into account.
> >
> > In the above case the conext of who is asked the question changes
> > the meaning of the question so that both yes and no are the wrong
> > answer from Jack.
>
> Jack's question is isomorphic to the halting problem counter-example
> where the input D to a halt decider H does the opposite of whatever
> halt status that H returns.

Yup. H cannot return yes or no, therefore HP is undecidable, similar to Jack's
question.
If you say HP is decidable, it would be the same to say Jack's question can be
answered with yes or no.

[olcott]

So Jack's question and the HP are isomorphic to this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
In that none of them has a correct yes/no answer.

[wij]

It is difficult to say 'isomorphic'. The Jack's question or the new question
"What time is it" are ANALOGY, not formalized like the HP is.

> In that none of them has a correct yes/no answer.

Likely that none of them has a proper yes/no answer, same as the HP. So, the
HP is called UNDECIDABLE.

[olcott]

It is deceptive to say that people cannot make up their mind about the
answer to an incorrect question. What is called "undecidable" is more
accurately called an incorrect question.

Computer science is not limited by its inability to correctly answer
incorrect questions.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, because it is a FALSE statment that they are "isomophic".

That statement makes the ERROR that "Jack" a volitional being is the
same thing as a non-volitional program.

You are just making a category error.

A program WILL BY DEFINITION either Halt or Not on a given input, thus
there IS a correct answer to the question, will this input halt.

The only way for that to not be a proper question, is for the input
program to not actually BE a program, and for H^ to not be a program
means, by necessity, that H isn't a program, and thys can't be claimed
to be a possible Halt Decider.

You are just showing that you are nothing more than an ignorant liar.

PERIOD.


I guess your problem is tha your can't see the difference between a
volitional being and a non-volitional program, which shows your own
stupidity.

[Richard Damon]

Except the question is NOT "Incorrect", the only thing that is
"incorrect" here is your logic.

As I have shown, all you have done is proven that you have shown that
you are a liar. Your hypothectical H can't exist as a program, and your
actual H doesn't do what you claim.

In fact, you yourself have proven that P(P) will halt, as will a correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P), but H give the INCORRECT answer that
it will not.

So, *YOU* have proven that you are a liar when you say you are correct.

YOU are the "Liar Paradox".

[wij]

IMO, the term 'undecidable' is revolutionary. It is fine you like to call it
building H an incorrect question, but doesnt' that mean the H is unconstructable?
What does your incorrect question mean?

> Computer science is not limited by its inability to correctly answer
> incorrect questions.

Yes, why is your question not an incorrect question?

[olcott]

An incorrect yes/no (technically polar) question is any polar question
such that neither "yes" nor "no" is a correct answer.

>> Computer science is not limited by its inability to correctly answer
>> incorrect questions.
>
> Yes, why is your question not an incorrect question?

[wij]

So, you just swapped the term, anything else interesting?

[olcott]

[Richard Damon]

On 10/10/23 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:

> Computer science is not limited by its inability to correctly answer
> incorrect questions.
>

But YOU clearly ARE limited by your inability to understand what the
question is.

"Does Program P when given input D halt in finite time?" is ALWAYS a
proper question, as any such program will either Halt in finite time or not.

Your argument of it not being one is just based on your assumption that
your "program H" doesn't actually need to meet the requirements of a
"Program", probably because you just don't understand what you are
talking about because you are too stupid.

[olcott]

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Because both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack then the
question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack.

[Richard Damon]

(You didn't give a question, I guess YOU are making more mistakes).

Yes, Asking *JACK* about what *HE* will say can become a contradiction,
and thus an incorrect question.

The Halting Problem Question thou, doesn't ask the Halt Decider about
what it will do, but about what another program will do, and THAT has a
definite answer.

Note, if Jack was a "robot", with a fixed algorithm of what he would
say, then the question "Will Jack say No as hi next answer?" becomes a
VALID question, as it has a difinitive answer.

Note, if Jack IS volitional, then that question doesn't actually have a
correct answer, even when asked of someone other than Jack, until the
point in the future when he does speak, and thus, in many modes of
logic, just isn't a valid question.

The key point is that volitional beings are not "predictable" and thus
questions about their future behavior don't have a correct answer NOW,
while deterministic programs ARE predictable and thus questions about
what they will do in the future was fixed in the past (when the program
was created) and thus questions about them DO have a correct answer even
right now, even if we haven't done the steps needed to determine that
answer (or even if we can't do steps to determine the answer).

The later is a question about KNOWLEDGE, not TRUTH. The TRUE answer
existed the moment the program was created, even if we never actually
know (or even can know) the answer.

[olcott]

On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...

>
> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> yes/no answer to the following question:
>
> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>
> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>

> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY
>

After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.

*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*

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

[immibis]

On 1/28/24 06:18, olcott wrote:
> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?

Is it possible or impossible to make a program that always tells you
whether the direct execution of its input would halt?

[Richard Damon]

On 1/28/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>
>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>> yes/no answer to the following question:
>>
>>        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>
>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>
>> Daryl McCullough
>> Ithaca, NY
>>
>
> After all these years this deserves academic credit
> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
> problem's decider / input pair.
>
> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>
> 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
>

Except that "Programs" don't have a "Psychology" as they don't "Think"
but just do deterministic computations.

Maybe your problem is that YOU don't actually think, but are just
following "your programming".

The conversion of "Does the machine described by the input halt?", to
"what is the correct answer that H could give?", the way you do it,
ignores the fact that H, to exist, has already fixed its answerk so
asking what it could have done differently is asking about if Jack was
Jill ...

Now, if when poseing the question we don't imagine that this "alternate
H" changed all things that had been done based on what H was, it becomes
valid again, that the answer for your H is change to H1 that doesn't
abort, showing that a CORRECT question has an answer.

[olcott]

On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>
>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>> yes/no answer to the following question:
>>
>>        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>
>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>
>> Daryl McCullough
>> Ithaca, NY
>>
>
> After all these years this deserves academic credit
> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
> problem's decider / input pair.
>
> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>
> 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
>

This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
professors express concurring opinions.

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

[Richard Damon]

On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>
>>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>
>>>        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>
>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>
>>> Daryl McCullough
>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>
>>
>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>
>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
> professors express concurring opinions.
>

Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
"Context Dependent"

A computation can NOT be "context Dependent", as a fundamental property
of a computation is that it is generates a definative mapping of its
input to its output.

You make the error by assuming the input to be decided on it a "program"
that act contrary to what ever decider is trying to decide it. That
isn't the input of the proof, and isn't even a possible program.

The input is an input built to refute ONE PARTICULAR decider (not
whatever decider is trying to decide it).

It is presented as a template, that is combinded with whatever decider
we might want to try to claim is correct, and it produces an input that
it can be shown that that ONE DECIDER will get wrong. The "template"
isn't what is given as the input, but the program generated by applying
that template to the particular decider we want to refute, which IS a
program, and whose behavior is not dependent on who we ask about this
particular input, so in Context Independent, as ALL computations must be,

You, and the people you like to say support you, seem not to understand
this fundamental property of Computations, perhaps confusing a more
general concept of "Program" from other parts of Computer Science (Yes,
you need to look at the field and what definitions and terms it uses).

[olcott]

On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>
>>>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>
>>>>        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>
>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>
>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>
>>>
>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>
>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>
>
> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
> "Context Dependent"

Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.

[Richard Damon]

Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not properly
defined.

By the basic rules of Computation theory, if H(M,d) is a
Computation/Program, then the D(d) Computation/Program can be correctly
defined, as it is built with fundamental steps.

Thus, the complaints that This "Pathological" input might not be a
program just shows their lack of understanding.

[Richard Damon]

On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:

So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
definite deterministic instructions that depend only on the inputs to
the computation and intermediate reuslts (a more formal/structureal
description of a Computation) that can be "Context dependent". That is,
show an execution trace of two such identical sequences of instructions,
with the same inputs, that cause a difference in execution path, by
showing the FIRST difference that occurs.

You can't doing it, and your failure to show just means you have proven
you just lied.

I have explained the error that you made, and they they made. Failure to
use the actual definitions of the field show a lack of understanding of
the field

[olcott]

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)

The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.

[Richard Damon]

If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a PROGRAM
that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT, and that it what the
Halting Theorem proves. So you are just admitting that you are wrong to
complain about the Halting Proglem.

If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that the question the prospective Halt
Decider is asked doesn't have an answer, you are wrong.

EVERY Program/Input pair will have a correct answer for the Halting
Question, as the program will either Halt or Not. Thus the question is
"Valid". This template just produces an input that a given decider will
get wrong.

Note, The specification being "Unsatisfiable" in the sense that no
program can be created, does NOT make the specification "Inconsistant"
(which means there is either no answer or multiple answer when only one
is allowed to a given question).

Stoddart is just showing his ignorance. His claim that "S is not a
program at all" is just a false statement or making an improper nit-pic
between the description (detailed enough to be followed to contruct the
program in question) and the actual code of the program that derives
from the specification.

[olcott]

Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:

What time is it (yes or no)?

Because it was defined to have no correct answer.

What correct Boolean value does H return for input D that has
been defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?

*Is isomorphic to this question*

USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2...@dont-email.me>
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
> himself?" has no correct answer.

Every question that has been defined to have no correct
answer <is> an incorrect question:

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>

[Richard Damon]

Nope. Strawman.

Does the

>
> What correct Boolean value does H return for input D that has
> been defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?

Which ISN'T the Halting Question.

>
> *Is isomorphic to this question*
>
> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2...@dont-email.me>
> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
> > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
> > himself?" has no correct answer.

Yes, because as the Halting Theorem has proven, The machine you are
defining as your H, just doens't exsits, just like the Barber doesn't exist.

>
> Every question that has been defined to have no correct
> answer <is> an incorrect question:

But the actual question, has a correct answer.

Change your quesiton to: What answer should a correct halt decider
return to be correct for the input designed to do the opposiite of a
particular claimed Halt Decider return?

And we HAV# a correct answer, whatever is the opposite of what that
decider produced (or non-halting if it doesn't answer).

>
> 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.

FALSE. The genesis of the Halting Problem predated the discovery that it
was impossible, and was in fact hoped and even presumed to be possible.

Alan Turing just showed that there was a particular input that could be
created that was impossible for a given machine to answer correctly.

> >
> > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.

So, you are confusing Problems with Questions.

The Halting Question is: Does the Machine and Input described by your
input Halt when run

The Halting Problem: Can you make a machine that computes this answer
for every possible input.


The Question clearly has a correct answer for every possible machine /
Input combination, as the Halting Property obeys the principle of the
excluded middle and non-contradictory. (it is impossible for a given
machine / input to be either BOTH Halting and non-halting or neither
Halting and Non-Halting. One MUST occur and excludes the other (since
any machine that doesn't Halt is defined to be Non-Halting).

> > …
> > CONCLUSION:
> > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.

UNSOUND & INVALID LOGIC since it uses false premsise and invalid logic
(Problems are different then Quesitons)

> >
> USENET Message-ID:
> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>

[immibis]

Can you specify how to execute a Turing machine?

[olcott]

Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.

[immibis]

True or false: Every sequence is either finite or infinite.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
ignorant to know the meaning of the words.

A QUESTION is incorrect, if it does not have a possible answer. Thus,
"What is the Truth Value of the Liar's Paradox" in an incorrect question.

An UNSATISFIABLE problem in Compuation Theory is a Problem that asks if
you can build a Machine that computes the answer to a Question for all
possible inputs.

That doesn't mean the Question doesn't have an answer for all possible
inputs, just that we can not build a computaton structure that gives
that answer in a finite number of steps.

The Halting Question has, as I have explained, a correct answer for
every possible program/input combination, as that compuation will either
finish in finite time or not.

The Halting Question is shown to be uncomputable, and thus the Halting
PRoblem unsatisfiable, because for any machine you might try to claim is
a solution to the problem, there is an input that it get wrong.

Thus, Halting has a valid question, but in uncomputable.

You just seem unable to distinguish between these seperate facts,
because you are just too ignorant about what they actually mean.

You are just proving yourself to be an Insane and Ignorant Hypocritical
Pathological Lying Idiot.

[olcott]

*Then you tell me what you think that means*

[Richard Damon]

A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
number of steps.

Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.

Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no program
can compute it).

[olcott]

Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, not in this case.

Inputs are just strings that represent programs, and programs are self
contained blocks that always have a defined behavior.

No posibility for an actual PROGRAM to be "self-contradictory".

You get into your "Contradiction" by ignoring that H is a PROGRAM, and a
piece of the PROGRAM of D, and thus, must have defined behavior, so
"Unless" or "Must" (as you are trying to use them) don't really have
meaning.

A program does what it is programmed to do, and that result will either
be correct or incorrect.

Please try to show me a program that doesn't have a correct answer to
the question: "Does this program halt when run?"

(Note, Not your non-equivalent variant of correct simulation by H)

It can be a D built on an H, but you have to define the H.

And "Get the right answer" is NOT a programatic step.

If you want to specify until a such and such condition occurs, you need
to spell them out, not just "Correct Halting Patterns"

[olcott]

It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
because their inputs are self-contradictory.

If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

[Richard Damon]

Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will either
Halt or Not.

So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
"Self-Contradictory"

IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this.

>
> If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>

And what does Tarski have to do with "Halting" or "Computation Theory"?

(Well there is a connection, but deeper than you seem to understand)

[olcott]

Tarski concluded that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist
on the basis that this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true" ?
has no correct answer.

When the formalized Liar Paradox is the input to a decider decision
theory concludes that it is undecidable rather than incorrect.

[Richard Damon]

We were talking about the Halting Problem.

Are you admitting you were wrong and shifting to another topic, or are
you just trapped and throwing up a Red Herring?

I'm goinf

[olcott]

Since you do not understand how deciders works then you cannot
understand how halt decider work.

Decision theory concludes that undecidable decision problems prove
that a theory is incomplete when it cannot prove or refute syntactically
correct expressions that are semantic nonsense.

"this sentence is not true" is a syntactically correct sentence
that is an semantically incorrect statement.

I owned LiarParadox.org for several years because many undecidable
decision problems are isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.

>
> Are you admitting you were wrong and shifting to another topic, or are
> you just trapped and throwing up a Red Herring?
>
> I'm goinf

[Richard Damon]

In other words, because you don't understand how logic works, you have
come up with cockamamie theorys of how it should work.

You say I don't know how Deciders work, but it is you how doesn't know that.

When you tried to write a simple Turing Machine to be a decider, you
totally failed and got hung up on irrelevent details about things like
what character set encoding the tape should be in.

The statement you call "semantic nonsense" (if you are refering to
Godel) is a very semantically meaningful statement (that you just don't
understand, so it has no meaning to you) that there does not exist a
natural number g that statisfies a particular Primative Recursive
Relationship. That sentence clearly has semantic meaning, at least as
much as ANY mathematical statement has "semantic" meaning

Note, you keep on saying that people expected the Liar's Paradox to have
a truth value or that the truth predicate was being applied to that
statement, but that was never actually done.

Tarski shows that give an assumption of the computable predicate for
truth, that by the rules previously shown (that you clearly don't
understand) allow him to DERIVE that the Liar's Paradox would have a
truth value, and from that shows that there can not be such a computable
predicate.

It is clear that you understanding of logic just can't handle the
concept of "Meta-Theory", likely because your understanding of logic
just doesn't understand what a formal logic system is.

I will also note that it seems that most of your Isomorphisms" are based
on the unacceptable assumption that Truth must be provable. While you
can build systems on such a definition, all the theories you have been
looking at have prerequisites that such a system can not meet. (Because
it strictly limits what logic you can allow into the system).

In other words, you are just proving to the world that you are just a
stupid crackpot. Maybe you can find some people that you think agree
with enough of your theory to make you happy, but none of that is actual
proof.

[olcott]

Try and show how a decider can correctly decide the truth value
of the formalized version of this: "this sentence is not true".

The problem is not my lack of understanding of logic the problem
it your lack of understanding of the philosophy of logic.

When I point out incoherence in aspects of logic you construe this
as my error because logic remains just the way that you memorized it.

You have zero deep understanding of the underlying epistemology
of the aspect of logic.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:

> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the

> halting problem is an ill-formed question.

Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
proved, and you have done nothing to change that.

[Mikko]

That is a reasonable way to say it but only if you accept that there
is a proof that the specification is unsatisfiable. If you reject all
proposed proofs you must say that it is an open question whether the
halting problem is defined with unsatisriable specification.

Mikko

[Richard Damon]

Never said it could.

> The problem is not my lack of understanding of logic the problem
> it your lack of understanding of the philosophy of logic.

No, YOU don't understand logic, or even language.

You think that "This statement is not True" is identical in meaning to
"This statement is not provable", this is false, so you don't understand
logic,

Note also, many aspects of the general philosophy of logic don't
actually apply to Formal Systems of Logic, as the decisions they discuss
have been decided, fixed, and locked down in the formal syatem. If you
want to change it, you can, but then you are in a DIFFERENT formal
system, and anything done isn't applicable to the original system.

This is something that appears to be foreign to you.

>
> When I point out incoherence in aspects of logic you construe this
> as my error because logic remains just the way that you memorized it.

No, you keep on going to Red Herrings, and never answer the actual
questions asked, probably because you know you can't

>
> You have zero deep understanding of the underlying epistemology
> of the aspect of logic.
>

Nope, YOU do, and are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[olcott]

Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:

Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?

It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.

Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
incorrect question.

[immibis]

On 1/29/24 14:53, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>
>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>
> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>
> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
> incorrect question.
>

The question:
Does this question have a correct answer:

Is this sentence true or false:

This sentence is not true.

has an answer.

[olcott]

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.
>

[1] 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

[2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
13 Nov 2014
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]

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

[immibis]

What about my formulation?
1. An execution point is the current state number and tape contents.
2. An execution sequence is the sequence of execution points a Turing
machine/input pair has, ending when it gets to a final state.
3. The halting problem is to write a Turing machine that takes a Turing
machine/input pair as input, and tells whether that Turing machine/input
pair has an infinite execution sequence.

You have ignored this formulation the last 3 times it was posted.

I suppose you'll reply to this one with a straw man or irrelevant argument.

[olcott]

Every instance of the conventional halting problem proofs
has an input D that attempts to do the opposite of whatever
Boolean value that H returns.

If it was successful then it would be a self-contradictory question
like this one:

Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?

For a simulating halt decider D cannot possibly reach the point
in its own execution trace where it derives the contradiction.

[olcott]

Self-contradictory questions have been shown to define infinite
structures that cannot be resolved in finite time.

These expressions are undecidable because they are incorrect.

[immibis]

You have now ignored the formulation four (4) times. Nothing in your
reply refers to anything that I said.

[immibis]

On 1/29/24 18:47, olcott wrote:

> On 1/29/2024 10:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>

>> What about my formulation? >> [formulation]

>> You have ignored this formulation the last 3 times it was posted.
>>
>> I suppose you'll reply to this one with a straw man or irrelevant
>> argument.
>

> [irrelevant stuff]

What you are saying is that my formulation is wrong because you want it
to be wrong because if it is not wrong then you are wrong.

[Richard Damon]

But the Halting Problem is a PURELY OBJECTIVE.

Note also, His definition of a "Program" does not match that of a Turing
Machine.

For one thing, his "Halting Analyzer" is not of the same class as the
programs it is to decide on. He limits its inputs to "L-Programs" that
can have no inputs, but it itself has an input.

So, his "answer" to the Halting Problem is to just restrict the inputs
to machines lesser than the deciders, an well known answer.

And then he makes the determinatiom of whether a question is "Objective"
or "Subjective" NOT based on the actual meaning of the words, but makes
any question that can not be computed as "Subjective".

This is just FALSE.

>
> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
> 13 Nov 2014
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]

WHich just shows that he doesn't understand what a Compuation IS in
computation theory. It is BY DEFINITION, a finite deterministic
algorithm applied to a defined input.

As such, an "function" that depends on things not considered "input" is
not a computation.

Yes, in a non-Turing system, it is possible to define things that might
be called "functions" that are dependent on things besides their formal
parameters.

If you look at his examples, this is EXACTLY what his "CDFS" do.

Such functions can NOT be converted into Turing Machines.

So, his arguement is outside the domains of "Compuation Theory".

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

Here, the author says that

S defined as If H(S) then Loop else end.

"Can't be implemented", and the reasoning is that since H can't be made,
the problem is with S (and not the unimplementability of Halting Detection).

He says:

There is no reason, however, why the halt test cannot terminate in other
situations, or why failure to halt cannot be reported via an error
message when the halt test itself cannot halt.

Except that to do so violates the definition of a Decider, being a
program that ALWAYS delivers its answer to its caller/use.

And again, he ignores that the DEFINITION of the sort of thing that H is
required to be, a COMPUTATION, by DEFINITION is only a function of its
formal parameters, and thus when he talks about H determining if it is
being called by S just invalidates his argument.

So, the common thread in all these papers, as well as your own, is that
they are ignoring the actual definition of what a Compuation (commonly
called a "Program" in lay terms) actually is, and thus show that they
are NOT actually working on the Halting Problem of Compuation Theory.

Yes, my guess is a lot of people have similar misunderstandings, but
that doesn't make them right.

You are just putting you lot with people who have shown that they don't
know what they are talking about as far as the requirements of
Computation Theory.

They all refer to being "equivalent" to Turing Machines, but all the
"programs" they propose can not be converted to Turing Machines as they
all need "secret" inputs which just do not exist with a Turing machine.
That is one of the powers of the simple Turing Machine architecture, ANY
Turing Machine MUST perform a computation (or be non-halting depending
on the exact version of the definition of Computation being used) while
many other architectures allow for hidden data paths that allow
"programs" that fail to be compuations (but might be a piece of a large
Computation).

[Richard Damon]

On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>
>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>
> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>
> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
> incorrect question.
>

And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.

[olcott]

Professor Hehner defines what he means by his terms.

> Note also, His definition of a "Program" does not match that of a Turing
> Machine.
>

Isomorphism

> For one thing, his "Halting Analyzer" is not of the same class as the
> programs it is to decide on. He limits its inputs to "L-Programs" that
> can have no inputs, but it itself has an input.
>

That is a mere simplification that changes nothing.
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
Professor C. Strachey does the same thing.

> So, his "answer" to the Halting Problem is to just restrict the inputs
> to machines lesser than the deciders, an well known answer.
>

The key portion of his answered is anchored in Carol's
question. I told him about the loophole that you found.

> And then he makes the determinatiom of whether a question is "Objective"
> or "Subjective" NOT based on the actual meaning of the words, but makes
> any question that can not be computed as "Subjective".
>

His stipulative definition makes perfect sense as a stipulative definition.

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes
of argument or discussion in a given context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

> This is just FALSE.
>
>>
>> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
>> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
>> 13 Nov 2014
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
>> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
>
> WHich just shows that he doesn't understand what a Compuation IS in
> computation theory. It is BY DEFINITION, a finite deterministic
> algorithm applied to a defined input.
>
> As such, an "function" that depends on things not considered "input" is
> not a computation.
>

Not at all. He like I and the other two professors understand
that when D calls H(D,D) then the halting problem specifies an
inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification
All three authors seems to agree on this.

> Yes, in a non-Turing system, it is possible to define things that might
> be called "functions" that are dependent on things besides their formal
> parameters.
>
> If you look at his examples, this is EXACTLY what his "CDFS" do.
>
> Such functions can NOT be converted into Turing Machines.
>

I already proved otherwise when we apply embedded_H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

> So, his arguement is outside the domains of "Compuation Theory".
>

The fact that embedded_H is applied to its own code DOES CHANGE THINGS.
This cannot be correctly ignored.

>>
>> [3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>>
>
> Here, the author says that
>
> S defined as If H(S) then Loop else end.
>
> "Can't be implemented", and the reasoning is that since H can't be made,
> the problem is with S (and not the unimplementability of Halting
> Detection).
>

Yes Professor Stoddart did not see that his own criterion measure could
be used as a halting criterion measure. He did see that it could be
used to report bad input.

"Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
invoked from within S1"

> He says:
>
> There is no reason, however, why the halt test cannot terminate in other
> situations, or why failure to halt cannot be reported via an error
> message when the halt test itself cannot halt.
>

Yes I just said that second part.

> Except that to do so violates the definition of a Decider, being a
> program that ALWAYS delivers its answer to its caller/use.
>

Hence my independently derived enhancement to my independently derived
"Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
invoked from within S1"

> And again, he ignores that the DEFINITION of the sort of thing that H is
> required to be, a COMPUTATION, by DEFINITION is only a function of its
> formal parameters, and thus when he talks about H determining if it is
> being called by S just invalidates his argument.
>

His work is preliminary compared to mine.

> So, the common thread in all these papers, as well as your own, is that
> they are ignoring the actual definition of what a Compuation (commonly
> called a "Program" in lay terms) actually is, and thus show that they
> are NOT actually working on the Halting Problem of Compuation Theory.
>

The key common thread is that the halting problem has
an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification.

> Yes, my guess is a lot of people have similar misunderstandings, but
> that doesn't make them right.
>

Since I know these things first-hand I know that they are correct.

> You are just putting you lot with people who have shown that they don't
> know what they are talking about as far as the requirements of
> Computation Theory.
>
> They all refer to being "equivalent" to Turing Machines, but all the
> "programs" they propose can not be converted to Turing Machines as they
> all need "secret" inputs which just do not exist with a Turing machine.
> That is one of the powers of the simple Turing Machine architecture, ANY
> Turing Machine MUST perform a computation (or be non-halting depending
> on the exact version of the definition of Computation being used) while
> many other architectures allow for hidden data paths that allow
> "programs" that fail to be compuations (but might be a piece of a large
> Computation).

Some of their ideas may not be Turing computable yet all of their
ideas do unify around:

The halting problem has an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification.
AKA the same ill-formed question that I claimed 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>

Hehner's Carol's question does a great job of elaborating this.

[olcott]

Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
question because the context of who is asked the question
DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.

What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.

[Richard Damon]

[Richard Damon]

On 1/29/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:

And the LIES by not using it (OR MISUSING IT).

>
>> Note also, His definition of a "Program" does not match that of a
>> Turing Machine.
>>
>
> Isomorphism

Only if a bummy rabbit is "Isomorphic" to an office building.

You are just proving you don't know what ANY of these things mean.

Like the joke, "I understand every language but Greek", and then when
someone ask them a quesition in Spanish, the answer is "That's Greek to
Me!".

>
>> For one thing, his "Halting Analyzer" is not of the same class as the
>> programs it is to decide on. He limits its inputs to "L-Programs" that
>> can have no inputs, but it itself has an input.
>>
>
> That is a mere simplification that changes nothing.
> https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
> Professor C. Strachey does the same thing.

Nope, He admits that an L-program decider couldn't decide on an
L-Program input, but then claims that an M-Program decider could, if
L-Programs aren't allowed to use M-Programs.

In other words, With M-Programs around, L-Programs can not be Turing
Complete.

Now, of course, he also argues that any M-Program can be converted to an
L-program (so he can claim that L-Programs are Turing Complete), so thus
the contradictory L-program CAN be built, or his claim is incorrect.

>
>> So, his "answer" to the Halting Problem is to just restrict the inputs
>> to machines lesser than the deciders, an well known answer.
>>
>
> The key portion of his answered is anchored in Carol's
> question. I told him about the loophole that you found.

Except that the issue with "Carol's Question" doesn't apply to question
put to Machines, as the machine is deterministic.

>
>> And then he makes the determinatiom of whether a question is
>> "Objective" or "Subjective" NOT based on the actual meaning of the
>> words, but makes any question that can not be computed as "Subjective".
>>
>
> His stipulative definition makes perfect sense as a stipulative definition.

but violates his previous definition.

>
> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
> currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes
> of argument or discussion in a given context.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

Right, and when you do that, you disconnect your argument from all other
meanings of the word, and thus, can no longer claim that because he
found the question to be stipulated-subjective that it must be invalide
as questions need to be objective and not subjective because his
stipulted-subjective definition includes some actually objective questions.

Thus, his arguement is a LIE.

>
>> This is just FALSE.
>>
>>>
>>> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
>>> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
>>> 13 Nov 2014
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
>>> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]

>> because the question is stipulatd -subjective it can't be correcgt,

>> WHich just shows that he doesn't understand what a Compuation IS in
>> computation theory. It is BY DEFINITION, a finite deterministic
>> algorithm applied to a defined input.
>>
>> As such, an "function" that depends on things not considered "input"
>> is not a computation.
>>
>
> Not at all. He like I and the other two professors understand
> that when D calls H(D,D) then the halting problem specifies an
> inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification
> All three authors seems to agree on this.

What is inconsistant about the specification?

What is wrong with it being unsatisfiable, which just means the answer
can't be computed by a machine for all possible inputs (but the correct
answer DOES exist).

All three make the same mistake of forgetting what a COMPUTATION is.

>
>> Yes, in a non-Turing system, it is possible to define things that
>> might be called "functions" that are dependent on things besides their
>> formal parameters.
>>
>> If you look at his examples, this is EXACTLY what his "CDFS" do.
>>
>> Such functions can NOT be converted into Turing Machines.
>>
>
> I already proved otherwise when we apply embedded_H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Nope.

YOu have CLAIMED it. you have never PROVED it,

Show the ACTUAL TURING MACHINE that did it!!!

(of course you can't, you failed at writing even a simple turing machine
decider)

>
>> So, his arguement is outside the domains of "Compuation Theory".
>>
>
> The fact that embedded_H is applied to its own code DOES CHANGE THINGS.
> This cannot be correctly ignored.

Nope.

Show an actual example.

ACTUAL CODE.

>
>>>
>>> [3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>> 20 December 2017
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here, the author says that
>>
>> S defined as If H(S) then Loop else end.
>>
>> "Can't be implemented", and the reasoning is that since H can't be
>> made, the problem is with S (and not the unimplementability of Halting
>> Detection).
>>
>
> Yes Professor Stoddart did not see that his own criterion measure could
> be used as a halting criterion measure. He did see that it could be
> used to report bad input.

So,

>
> "Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
> invoked from within S1"

Which is IMPOSSIBLE for a computation,

>
>> He says:
>>
>> There is no reason, however, why the halt test cannot terminate in
>> other situations, or why failure to halt cannot be reported via an
>> error message when the halt test itself cannot halt.
>>
>
> Yes I just said that second part.

So, you agree he doesn't understand the requirements of a decider.

>
>> Except that to do so violates the definition of a Decider, being a
>> program that ALWAYS delivers its answer to its caller/use.
>>
>
> Hence my independently derived enhancement to my independently derived
> "Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
> invoked from within S1"

Which is still IMPOSSIBLE for a COMPUTATION.

>
>> And again, he ignores that the DEFINITION of the sort of thing that H
>> is required to be, a COMPUTATION, by DEFINITION is only a function of
>> its formal parameters, and thus when he talks about H determining if
>> it is being called by S just invalidates his argument.
>>
>
> His work is preliminary compared to mine.

Yours is still POOP.

>
>> So, the common thread in all these papers, as well as your own, is
>> that they are ignoring the actual definition of what a Compuation
>> (commonly called a "Program" in lay terms) actually is, and thus show
>> that they are NOT actually working on the Halting Problem of
>> Compuation Theory.
>>
>
> The key common thread is that the halting problem has
> an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification.

What is "Inconsistant" about it?

What is wrong with being Unsatisfiable, which just means that the aswer
exists but no machine can compute it in a finite number of steps for all
inputs?

>
>> Yes, my guess is a lot of people have similar misunderstandings, but
>> that doesn't make them right.
>>
>
> Since I know these things first-hand I know that they are correct.

Yes, you seem to have a LOT of first-hand knowledge of misconceptions.

Like most of yours.

>
>> You are just putting you lot with people who have shown that they
>> don't know what they are talking about as far as the requirements of
>> Computation Theory.
>>
>> They all refer to being "equivalent" to Turing Machines, but all the
>> "programs" they propose can not be converted to Turing Machines as
>> they all need "secret" inputs which just do not exist with a Turing
>> machine. That is one of the powers of the simple Turing Machine
>> architecture, ANY Turing Machine MUST perform a computation (or be
>> non-halting depending on the exact version of the definition of
>> Computation being used) while many other architectures allow for
>> hidden data paths that allow "programs" that fail to be compuations
>> (but might be a piece of a large Computation).
>
> Some of their ideas may not be Turing computable yet all of their
> ideas do unify around:
>
> The halting problem has an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification.
> AKA the same ill-formed question that I claimed back in 2004.

But the question is NOT "ill-formed" as ever instance of it has an answer.

>
> 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>
>
> Hehner's Carol's question does a great job of elaborating this.
>
>

Which is just a bit LIE.

[Richard Damon]

On 1/29/24 9:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>>
>>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>> incorrect question.
>>>
>>
>> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
>> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.
>
> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
> question because the context of who is asked the question
> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.

Why is it different?

WHy does the behavior of D change because we ask H about it, since that
H was fully defined before D was created?

(It had to be, due to causality)

>
> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>
>

That is NOT the question, just your POOP.

The real questions we can ask are:

1) What Answer DOES H produce when asked H(D,D) ?

(This answer was FIXED when H was created, and is unchanging, your
claimed machine returns non-halting)

2) What is the Behavior of the machine descirbed by the input?

(In this case D(D), where, to be the proof case, D was built from the H
created before question 1, which you claim "correctly" returns
non-halting, so by the definition of D's operation, it WILL get that
answer from its copy of H and Halt)

3) Do these answers agree?

(Since non-halting is not the same as Halting, they do not, so H was
incorrect).

You can not ask what correct answer does H return, as if H doesn't
return that correct answer, the question is incorrect.

[olcott]

That *IS* the question as long as you are not too ignorant
to understand that the context of who is asked a question
*DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION*

The key example of this is: Are you a little girl?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:53:23 -0600, olcott wrote:

> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
> incorrect question.

Can you prove that?

[olcott]

I created the notion of an incorrect question back in 2015.
(and in 2004)

*The logical law of polar questions*
*Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM*

When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.

All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)
have exactly one answer from the following:
1) No
2) Yes
3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions

As far as I know I am the original discoverer of the
above logical law, thus copyright 2015 by Peter Olcott.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

[Richard Damon]

Who you ask the question to ony matters if the question pertains to you.

The Halting problem does not refer to the decider at all.

You are INCORRECTLY changing an purely objective question, whose answer
is independent of who you ask, into an attempted subjective question
asking about the what the decider could do.

You then need to change the actual problem to an improper version, where
the input, rather than being a FIXED string (which means D is built on
exactly one particular H) to a template built on what ever decider tries
to answer it,

You need to do this because the question doesn't make sense if you
don't. If H has already been programmed to do what it will do, you can't
ask what can it do to be correct, only is it correct, as its behavior
has been fixed in its creation.

Thus, you are just showing fundamental problems with you definitions.

[immibis]

On 1/30/24 03:17, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>>
>>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>> incorrect question.
>>>
>>
>> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
>> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.
>
> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
> question

Wrong

> because the context of who is asked the question
> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.

Wrong in mathematics

>
> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>

That is the POOP problem, not the halting problem. We are talking about
the halting problem, which asks whether a Turing machine/input pair has
an execution sequence that is infinite.

[olcott]

On 1/30/2024 9:38 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/30/24 03:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>>>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
>>> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.
>>
>> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
>> question
>
> Wrong
>
>> because the context of who is asked the question
>> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.
>
> Wrong in mathematics

It is necessarily always right it is the case that math
guys hardly know any linguistics at all thus mistake their
own ignorance for knowledge.

The x86 machine code of D proves that it specifies recursive
simulation to H.

_D()
[00001c72] 55 push ebp
[00001c73] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001c75] 51 push ecx
[00001c76] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c79] 50 push eax ; push D
[00001c7a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c7d] 51 push ecx ; push D
[00001c7e] e8bff8ffff call 00001542 ; call H
[00001c83] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001c86] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c89] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c8d] 7402 jz 00001c91
[00001c8f] ebfe jmp 00001c8f
[00001c91] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c94] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00001c96] 5d pop ebp
[00001c97] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c97]

>>
>> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>>
>
> That is the POOP problem, not the halting problem. We are talking about
> the halting problem, which asks whether a Turing machine/input pair has
> an execution sequence that is infinite.

[immibis]

You are ignorant because the context of who is asked a mathematical
question *DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION*

If I ask Susan whether the sequence [1,2,3,4,...] is infinite the
correct answer is the same as if I ask Joseph whether the sequence
[1,2,3,4,...] is infinite.

[immibis]

On 1/30/24 05:11, olcott wrote:

> the context of who is asked a question
> *DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION*
>
> The key example of this is: Are you a little girl?

Please express this question in ZFC

[immibis]

On 1/30/24 16:46, olcott wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 9:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/30/24 03:17, olcott wrote:
>>> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
>>> question
>>
>> Wrong
>>
>>> because the context of who is asked the question
>>> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.
>>
>> Wrong in mathematics
>
> It is necessarily always right it is the case that math
> guys hardly know any linguistics at all thus mistake their
> own ignorance for knowledge.

You hardly know any mathematics at all thus mistake your own ignorance
for knowledge.

[immibis]

On 1/30/24 06:57, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 11:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:53:23 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>> incorrect question.
>>
>> Can you prove that?
>
> I created the notion of an incorrect question back in 2015.
> (and in 2004)
>
> *The logical law of polar questions*
> *Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM*
>
> When posed to a man whom has never been married,
> the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
> Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
> no is a correct answer.
>
> All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)
> have exactly one answer from the following:
> 1) No
> 2) Yes
> 3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions
>
> As far as I know I am the original discoverer of the
> above logical law, thus copyright 2015 by Peter Olcott.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>

*The logical law of Olcott statements*
*Pseudonymous user "immibis" Jan 30 2024, 06:52:54 PM*

When posed to a Usenet newsgroup, any statement made by Peter Olcott is
an incorrect statement because it is the opposite of the truth.

All Olcott statements are at least two of the following:
1) Untrue
2) Stupid
3) Dishonest

As far as I know I am the original discoverer of the above logical law,

thus copyright 2024 by pseudonymous user "immibis".

[Richard Damon]

For this H, it specifies FINITE recursive simulation to H, so a HALTING
behavior.

[olcott]

When one understands that H is always correct to abort any
simulation that cannot possibly stop running unless aborted

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

As every H specified by the above template must do then each
and every element of this infinite set is correct to abort
its simulation and reject its input D as non-halting.

[Fred. Zwarts]

Op 31.jan.2024 om 04:53 schreef olcott:

No, Han aborts is simulation, so it is not necessary to abort Dan, which
is based on Han, because it aborts itself already. Then it returns a
non-halting status and Dan continues with line 04.
Han(Dan,Dan) should decide for its input Dan, which aborts itself, not
for its non-input Dss which has an infinite recursion.

[immibis]

When one understands that a non-halting machine has an infinite
execution sequence and a halting machine has a finite execution
sequence, one sees that you are wrong.

[Richard Damon]

No, H is only correct to abort and report non-halting, if that exact
same program it was looking at (using the exact same H as that H was)
will not halt when run.

If the code of that H is coded to abort and return non-halting, then
that input will be Halting, and thus that H was wrong.

This goes back to the comments about the "Illusion of Truth", as, H,
isn't looking at the input that it was ACTUALLY given, but the
programmer of it was reasoning (not the program, as programs don't
"reason" only obey their programmong) if he wrote a different program,
that didn't abort, then the input IT was given (neglecting that this
input would be DIFFERENT, as it is based on a different H) must have its
simulation aborted. But since that is a different input, you can't
migrate that answer to the input it was actually given.

Your problem is you just don't understand the fundamental terms you are
using. Halting is about Specific input that decribe specific programs.
"Templates" themselves are NOT valid inputs, only ways to make valid
inputs.h
THe above is NOT such a valid input, but needs the definition of H
included. Once you define that this is using a specific H, you aren't
allowed to change that for this input, which your logic does.

Thus, you are just proving that all you are talking about is POOP and
not halting.

[olcott]

Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H

is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly
stop running unless aborted:

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

[olcott]

Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

*When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
*is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted*

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

[olcott]

That you can't seem to fully grasp the concept of a program
template is your own short-coming and not mine.

Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

*When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
*is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted*

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

[immibis]

yeah because if you referenced just one, it would be easy to prove you
are wrong. By referencing an infinite number at the same time, you make
the proof nonsensical, so it cannot be proven wrong because it doesn't
even make sense, like proving the colour blue wrong.

[immibis]

Halting is about programs, not program templates. A program halts or
doesn't. A program template does neither because it is just a template.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, as the correct simulation of the input for any H that returns
non-halting is Halting (even if H can't do that simulation).

>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
> the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

Nope, see other detailed post.

[Richard Damon]

Excpet that Halting isn't about "Program Templates" but "Programs"

And thus you are caught in your LIE that you are actually working on the
Halting Problem.

You are just playing with your POOP.

>
> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

So, you are just talking POOP, not Halting.

>
> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted*
>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
> the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>

Just more lies. See details elsewhere.

[immibis]

Olcott was not able to respond to this.