On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>
>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>
>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> *YES*
>>
>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>
> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>

I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
<is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:

Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
is not any rebuttal at all.

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

On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>
>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG !!!
>>
>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>
>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>
>
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>
> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> *YES*
>
> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>
>

Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only give
ONE of the two answers.

You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.

Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the same
question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.

So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H, and
the question is no longer about "itself".

Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.

On 2/21/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>
>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *YES*
>>>
>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>
>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>
>
> I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
> That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
> <is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:
>
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> is not any rebuttal at all.
>
>

Except that Ȟ isn't a Decider, so it isn't asked any question. H is the
decider, and it isn't given a description of itself, so we can't use
that arguement.

You are just proving that you are totally ignorant of the subject that
you are talking about.

On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>
>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>
>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> *YES*
>>
>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>
>>
>
> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only give
> ONE of the two answers.
>
> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>
> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the same
> question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>
> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H, and
> the question is no longer about "itself".
>
> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>

*The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
and you know that I have proven this yet don't give a rat's
ass for the truth even if this truth about truth itself is
the only thing that can save the Earth from death by climate
change.

If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not get
away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.

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

On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/21/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *YES*
>>>>
>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>>
>>
>> I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
>> That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
>> <is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:
>>
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> is not any rebuttal at all.
>>
>>
>
> Except that Ȟ isn't a Decider, so it isn't asked any question.

Your weasel words and double-talk are helping to kill the whole
planet. If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not
get away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.

> H is the
> decider, and it isn't given a description of itself, so we can't use
> that arguement.
>

The only reason that H is not a decider is that people are
too freaking stupid to understand that invalid input must
be rejected, otherwise H <is> a decider.

> You are just proving that you are totally ignorant of the subject that
> you are talking about.

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

On 2/21/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>
>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *YES*
>>>
>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>
>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>
>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the same
>> question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>
>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H, and
>> the question is no longer about "itself".
>>
>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>
>
> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
> and you know that I have proven this yet don't give a rat's
> ass for the truth even if this truth about truth itself is
> the only thing that can save the Earth from death by climate
> change.
>
> If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not get
> away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>

Nope. YOu are just proving your ignorance.

You haven't actually proven anything of import, except your own ignorance.

I don't think you actually understand how to actually prove something,
only attempt to make philosphical arguments about things (with out
actually understanding what you are talking about).

Most lies are fairly easy to prove to be lies, as your lies have been.

You can choose to ignore the proof and continue to beleive your own
lies, but you mostly only hurt yourself, and maybe a few dumb people who
you might persude with your lies.

You somehow have the strange idea that if one truth can't be proven,
then no truths can be proven (or falsehoods disproven) which is just a
falsehood.

While we can't compute the truth value for ALL statements, we can for
MANY statements. And when talking about the "Real World", sometimes the
issue become needing to understand that actual state of the universe, or
the actual laws behind it, which isn't a "logic problem", but a
"Science" problem.

You are just provin gthat you totally misunderstand how logic works.

On 2/21/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
>>> That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
>>> <is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:
>>>
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> is not any rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Except that Ȟ isn't a Decider, so it isn't asked any question.
>
> Your weasel words and double-talk are helping to kill the whole
> planet. If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not
> get away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.

Nope.

YOU are the one spreading lies.

If you think Truth actually is computable, why don't you spend your time
working on that computation?

The answer, you are just a pathological liar, and don't understand what
you are talking about.

Note, just because we can't make a computation that always determines
the truth of a statement, doesn't mean we can't show what is actually
true about many statements.

You just don't seem to understand that about Truth.

>
>> H is the decider, and it isn't given a description of itself, so we
>> can't use that arguement.
>>
>
> The only reason that H is not a decider is that people are
> too freaking stupid to understand that invalid input must
> be rejected, otherwise H <is> a decider.

I never said H wasn't a decider, it can be a decider, just not a HALT
decider, since it says that the computataion Ȟ (Ȟ) will never halt, when
it performs H (Ȟ) (Ȟ), but the actual compuation Ȟ (Ȟ) does halt, so H
was wrong.

You have admitted these facts (That this is the answer that you H gives,
and that that computation does halt), and thus you have agreed that you
are FACTUALLY WRONG that H is actually a Halt Decider.

You think that the wrong answer must be right, and in fact you insist
that it must be just shows that you just don't actually beleive that
actual truth matters, and that you opinion matters more than the actual
facts.

THAT is the core of what you see as the problem with the world, and you
are just making it worse.

YOU are your own worse enemy.

>
>> You are just proving that you are totally ignorant of the subject that
>> you are talking about.
>

On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*

You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that correctly
answers all English sentences true or false. This places a limit on what
can be built.

On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>
> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that correctly
> answers all English sentences true or false. This places a limit on what
> can be built.

*Quoted below from by 2004 post*
"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

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

On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:

> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>
>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG !!!
>>
>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>
>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>
>
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>
> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> *YES*
>
> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*

Nice to see that you agree.

--
Mikko

On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:

> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>
>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *YES*
>>>
>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only give
>> ONE of the two answers.
>>
>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>
>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the same
>> question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>
>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H, and
>> the question is no longer about "itself".
>>
>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>
>
> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*

No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
the liar paradox but there are other ways.

--
Mikko

On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>
>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places a
>> limit on what can be built.
>
> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
> "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
>
You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that correctly
answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This places a limit
on what can be built.

On 2/22/24 12:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>
>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places a
>> limit on what can be built.
>
> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
> "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
>

Just proves you like your Herring with red sause.

herring with Red Sause.

Also, that you don't understand how to do logic, and don't even try to
follow your own rules, so are admitting to being a pathological liar.

You are going to be remembered for being totally stupid.

On 2/22/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>
>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>
>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> *YES*
>>
>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>
> Nice to see that you agree.
>

The halting problem cannot be solved (we agree).

The reason why the halting problem cannot be solved is
that there is something wrong with it. (you fail to understand)

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

Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.

This is because the question:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.

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

On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *YES*
>>>>
>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>
>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>
>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H, and
>>> the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>
>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>
>>
>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>
> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>

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

Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.

This is because the question:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.

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

On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/21/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *YES*
>>>>
>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>
>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>
>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H, and
>>> the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>
>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>
>>
>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>> and you know that I have proven this yet don't give a rat's
>> ass for the truth even if this truth about truth itself is
>> the only thing that can save the Earth from death by climate
>> change.
>>
>> If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not get
>> away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>>
>
> Nope. YOu are just proving your ignorance.
>
> You haven't actually proven anything of import, except your own ignorance.
>
> I don't think you actually understand how to actually prove something,
> only attempt to make philosphical arguments about things (with out
> actually understanding what you are talking about).
>
> Most lies are fairly easy to prove to be lies, as your lies have been.
>

The hired liars of the fossil fuel company are getting away with their
lies because they are very well funded and most people simply are not
bright enough to tell the difference.

> You can choose to ignore the proof and continue to beleive your own
> lies, but you mostly only hurt yourself, and maybe a few dumb people who
> you might persude with your lies.
>

Although you admitted that the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false
you continue to dodge this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?

The above is an incorrect self-contradictory question that
was intentionally defined to have no correct answer.

You deceptively ignore this because you know it proves my point.

> You somehow have the strange idea that if one truth can't be proven,
> then no truths can be proven (or falsehoods disproven) which is just a
> falsehood.
>

I never said anything like that.
Tarski tried to show that not all truths can be proven
in the basis that he could not prove that a lie is true.

> While we can't compute the truth value for ALL statements, we can for
> MANY statements. And when talking about the "Real World", sometimes the
> issue become needing to understand that actual state of the universe, or
> the actual laws behind it, which isn't a "logic problem", but a
> "Science" problem.
>
> You are just provin gthat you totally misunderstand how logic works.

It is that I do understand how logic works better than Tarski and Gödel
yet mindless robots that are attached to incoherent dogma do not agree
because they are mindless robots attached to incoherent dogma.

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

On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/21/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
>>>> That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
>>>> <is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:
>>>>
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> is not any rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that Ȟ isn't a Decider, so it isn't asked any question.
>>
>> Your weasel words and double-talk are helping to kill the whole
>> planet. If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not
>> get away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>
> Nope.
>
> YOU are the one spreading lies.
>
> If you think Truth actually is computable, why don't you spend your time
> working on that computation?

Once self-contradictory expressions are rejected as not truth bearers
then truth can be computed.

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

On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places a
>>> limit on what can be built.
>>
>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>> "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
>>
> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that correctly
> answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This places a limit
> on what can be built.

It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
and no one or nothing else.

Formal systems cannot be shown to be incomplete and correct and
consistent truth predicates cannot be show to not exist on the
basis of semantically incorrect input.

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

On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places a
>>>> limit on what can be built.
>>>
>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>> "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
>>>
>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>> places a limit on what can be built.
>
> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
> and no one or nothing else.

Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be built.

>
> Formal systems cannot be shown to be incomplete and correct and
> consistent truth predicates cannot be show to not exist on the
> basis of semantically incorrect input.

If it can't build something, it's incomplete.

On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places
>>>>> a limit on what can be built.
>>>>
>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>> "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
>>>>
>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>
>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>> and no one or nothing else.
>
> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be built.

Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.

Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.

Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
ocean.

>>
>> Formal systems cannot be shown to be incomplete and correct and
>> consistent truth predicates cannot be show to not exist on the
>> basis of semantically incorrect input.
>
> If it can't build something, it's incomplete.
>

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

On 2/22/24 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places a
>>>> limit on what can be built.
>>>
>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>> "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
>>>
>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>> places a limit on what can be built.
>
> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
> and no one or nothing else.
>
> Formal systems cannot be shown to be incomplete and correct and
> consistent truth predicates cannot be show to not exist on the
> basis of semantically incorrect input.
>
>

And they aren't, because the questions they are shown not to be able to
anser are not "incorrect".

You are just showing your stupidity by trying to "simplify" them to be
something that are not, and your lying Strawman are the "incorrect"
questions.

You are just PROVING that you are just a ignorant and stupid
pathological liar.

Self Made at that too it seems.

On 2/22/24 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places
>>>>>> a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>> "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
>>>>>
>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>
>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>
>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be
>> built.
>
> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>
> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>
> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
> ocean.
>

And computations are limited in that no compuation can always tell if
the computation descirbed by its input will halt.

Formal Logic systems are limited in that for system of a minimal level
of "power" in them, there exist statements which ARE TRUE, but can not
be proven in the system.

Yes, the Proofs didn't limit the systems, they were already limited in
that way before, we just discivered that limitation they always had.

>>>
>>> Formal systems cannot be shown to be incomplete and correct and
>>> consistent truth predicates cannot be show to not exist on the
>>> basis of semantically incorrect input.
>>
>> If it can't build something, it's incomplete.
>>
>

On 2/22/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
>>>>> That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
>>>>> <is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> is not any rebuttal at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that Ȟ isn't a Decider, so it isn't asked any question.
>>>
>>> Your weasel words and double-talk are helping to kill the whole
>>> planet. If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not
>>> get away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> YOU are the one spreading lies.
>>
>> If you think Truth actually is computable, why don't you spend your
>> time working on that computation?
>
> Once self-contradictory expressions are rejected as not truth bearers
> then truth can be computed.
>

Nope.

But then, you have shown that you are too stupid to understand this.

After all, you think the use of Strawmen is a valid form of arguent.

Remember, the ACTUAL Halting Question is TOTALLY not self-contradictory,
only your Strawman rewrite, which is based on lies.

For every input that actually represents and Computation, there IS a
correct answer, and thus is not "self-contradictory"

Only by altering the input to no longer be a description of an actual
Computation, but to be of a "Template", ad the decider to not be a
computation either, but a "Set" of Machines, do you get your
self-contradictory version of the POOPing Question.

You have already ADMITTED to this LIE, so your argument can be rejected
on that basis.

You are just proving that you are just too ignorant of all of this
material to understand the nearly uncountable errors you have made, over
and over, which also shows that you have made yourself an unteachable idiot.

On 2/22/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>
>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>
>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>> and you know that I have proven this yet don't give a rat's
>>> ass for the truth even if this truth about truth itself is
>>> the only thing that can save the Earth from death by climate
>>> change.
>>>
>>> If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not get
>>> away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. YOu are just proving your ignorance.
>>
>> You haven't actually proven anything of import, except your own
>> ignorance.
>>
>> I don't think you actually understand how to actually prove something,
>> only attempt to make philosphical arguments about things (with out
>> actually understanding what you are talking about).
>>
>> Most lies are fairly easy to prove to be lies, as your lies have been.
>>
>
> The hired liars of the fossil fuel company are getting away with their
> lies because they are very well funded and most people simply are not
> bright enough to tell the difference.

And you are stupider then them to think that they would suddenly realize
what is truth because some "program" told them that.

As you have proven, idiots will beleive what they want to beleive, and
showing them what is true won't change their mine.

>
>> You can choose to ignore the proof and continue to beleive your own
>> lies, but you mostly only hurt yourself, and maybe a few dumb people
>> who you might persude with your lies.
>>
>
> Although you admitted that the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false
> you continue to dodge this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?

I don'y dodge it, because, as you admit, it doesn't have an answer.

>
> The above is an incorrect self-contradictory question that
> was intentionally defined to have no correct answer.
>
> You deceptively ignore this because you know it proves my point.

No, I KNOW that point, but you then LIE that other questions, that HAVE
answers are the same as it.

You can't seem to tell the difference between things that re the same,
and things that are different.

This shows your stupidity.

>
>> You somehow have the strange idea that if one truth can't be proven,
>> then no truths can be proven (or falsehoods disproven) which is just a
>> falsehood.
>>
>
> I never said anything like that.
> Tarski tried to show that not all truths can be proven
> in the basis that he could not prove that a lie is true.

You are mixing up the words, he shows that NOT-ALL truths can be proven,
not that no truths can be proven. Many Truths can be proven true, and
many false statments can be proven false. There isn't a "definition"
that can be "cranked" to give the correct answer for EVERY statement
(even if we can for many(

>
>> While we can't compute the truth value for ALL statements, we can for
>> MANY statements. And when talking about the "Real World", sometimes
>> the issue become needing to understand that actual state of the
>> universe, or the actual laws behind it, which isn't a "logic problem",
>> but a "Science" problem.
>>
>> You are just provin gthat you totally misunderstand how logic works.
>
> It is that I do understand how logic works better than Tarski and Gödel
> yet mindless robots that are attached to incoherent dogma do not agree
> because they are mindless robots attached to incoherent dogma.
>

Nope, totally false.

YOU THINK this because you havve brain-washed yourself into beleiving
your own lies.

Really is a shame to see someone so messed up.

On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>
>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>
>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>
>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>
> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>
> This is because the question:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>
>

Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing question.

The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input Halt
when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one of that infinite
set of machines, so IS a "Correct Question", the fact that none of the
machines can give the right answer makes the question "Uncomputable"
(also called Undecidable) but still "Valid"

Your lack of the ability to understand that basoc fact just shows your
stupidity.