On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>
> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>

That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.

The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
epistemological antinomies is incoherent.

People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
Philosophers that examine these things looking for
incoherence find it.

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

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> >
> > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> >
> > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> >
>
> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>
> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>
> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> incoherence find it.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>

So, do you agree what GUR says?

People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
Give in, my friend.

On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>
>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>
>>
>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>
>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>
>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>> incoherence find it.
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>
> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>
> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> Give in, my friend.

Graphical User Robots?
The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > >
> > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > >
> > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > >
> > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > >
> > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > incoherence find it.
> > >
> > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > >
> >
> > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> >
> > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > Give in, my friend.
>
> Graphical User Robots?
> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.

People believes GUR are going to survive.
People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.

On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>
>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>
>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>
>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>
>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>> Give in, my friend.
>>
>> Graphical User Robots?
>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>
> People believes GUR are going to survive.
> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.

What the Hell is GUR ?

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > >
> > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > >
> > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > >
> > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > Give in, my friend.
> > >
> > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> >
> > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>
> What the Hell is GUR ?

Selective memory?
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ

Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.

On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>
>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>
>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>
>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>
>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>
> Selective memory?
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>
> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.

I simplify that down to this.

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

The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
these decision problems decidable.

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

On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of
>>> an
>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to
>>> run
>>> forever....
>>>
>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>
>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>
>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>
> This is not the halting problem.
>
>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>
>
> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>

The halting problem is one of many problems that is
only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
(thus incorrect) question.

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > > > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > > > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Selective memory?
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I simplify that down to this.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> > > > > a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > >
> > > > > The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> > > > > flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> > > > > answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
> > > > >
> > > > > When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> > > > > excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> > > > > these decision problems decidable.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description
> > > > of
> > > > an
> > > > arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
> > > > to
> > > > run
> > > > forever....
> > > >
> > > > This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
> > > > terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
> > > > interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
> > > >
> > > > If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
> > > > problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
> >
> > > If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
> > > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
> >
> > This is not the halting problem.
> >
> > > Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
> > >
> >
> > This is another problem (not the HP neither)
> >
>
> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
> (thus incorrect) question.
>

What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?

On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description
>>>>> of
>>>>> an
>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
>>>>> to
>>>>> run
>>>>> forever....
>>>>>
>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>
>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>
>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>
>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>
>>
>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>
> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>

The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
to the Halting Problem and many others.

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

On 02/28/2024 09:50 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/28/2024 07:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 7:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In chapter 12 of "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata"
>>>>> Linz
>>>>> presents the classical proof of the halting theorem only out of
>>>>> historical interest. He has, to all intents and purposes, already
>>>>> proved the theorem in the preceding chapter having proved
>>>>
>>>>> 11.3 There exists a recursively enumerable language whose
>>>>> complement is not recursively enumerable.
>>>>
>>>>> 11.4 If a language L and its complement L' are both recursively
>>>>> enumerable, then both languages are recursive. If L is
>>>>> recursive, then L' is also recursive, and consequently both are
>>>>> recursively enumerable.
>>>>
>>>>> 11.5 There exists a recursively enumerable languaga that is not
>>>>> recursive; that is, the family of recursive languages is a
>>>>> proper
>>>>> subset of the family of recursively enumerable languages.
>>>>
>>>>> This is a much stronger result than the halting theorem since the
>>>>> halting theorem follows directly as a corollary to it. But it
>>>>> could be
>>>>> argued that it's a bit of a round about way to do it.
>>>>
>>>>> Conversely, the classical proof by contradiction seems to lead a
>>>>> lot of
>>>>> non-mathematical students astray. I think they tend to assume that if
>>>>> you can specify it, you can implement it, and /assuming/ that there
>>>>> is a
>>>>> program that does something just makes that worse! This is why I once
>>>>> tried setting Post's correspondence problem as a background exercise,
>>>>> just as if it were any other programming problem.
>>>>
>>>>> If you were teaching this material, how would you approach the halting
>>>>> theorem? Would you give a more intuitive proof or stick with a formal
>>>>> one? What model would you use? I was taught it using Minsky
>>>>> machines,
>>>>> and that has the advantage (for lectures) that it's very visual with
>>>>> lots of diagrams. That's almost impossible to present on Usenet, but
>>>>> then I'm not suggesting you actually post your favourite proof, only
>>>>> that you describe it.
>>>>
>>>> I may be a bit late on this thread, but I have an idea.
>>>>
>>>> If you're going to be going with the contradiction argument that
>>>> dominates this group, rather than saying you "construct" a counter
>>>> example, say that you "select" it from the set of all programs, as
>>>> though it already existed.
>>>
>>> Hmmm... I'm not sure. With the construction argument one can at least
>>> keep saying "if there were such a TM, we could make a TM that does..."
>>> thereby keeping everything continually conditional. Suggesting we find
>>> the derived TM might make it easier for a student to forget that we
>>> don't know and such TM even exits. It might look like for are finding a
>>> "counter-example" when, in fact, there is nothing to find.
>>>
>>> But I do like the idea when applied to the better "no TM decides
>>> halting" proof. We can number all TMs, and then "select" at least one
>>> input that TM number 1 get wrong. Then we can select at least one the
>>> TM number 2 gets wrong and so on. For every actual TM, there really is
>>> one we can find to show that it fails to decide halting.
>>>
>>>> That might help emphasize that the purported halt decider would have to
>>>> work with _all_ programs.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I like the procedure that shows that for EVERY TM, If we ask, can
>> this be a Halt Decider, we show that there exists an input where its
>> answer is incorrect if it was a Halt Decider.
>>
>> It gets you thinking about the fact that a Turing Machine will generate
>> the result that it is programmed to give, and not try to think about how
>> it could get the "right" answer, because it was never actually trying to
>> get the right answer, we are trying to find if any just happen to give
>> that answer.
>
> Of course you can rewrite a program to interleave
> pauses or yieldings, to result "didn't halt yet", ....
>
> Or, you know, did.
>
> Then all you need do is overclock it to infinity.
>
> It's systolic, ....
>
>
>
> Intel CSI QPI UPI
> AMD HyperTransport
> ARM CoreLink
>
> It's much memory-coherence with then disk, I/O, peripheral hosts, ...,
> each PC chip-set is a little network in the middle.
>
>
> The new 3-D C-D's store a petabit on a disc, ...,
> hundreds and thousands and thousands and more DVD's,
> all on one disc, ..., talk about Compact Disc.
>
>
>
> It might help to show first a bunch of various sorts
> examples, direct, diverse, varied, and surprising,
> that _do_ and _don't_ compute the predicate.
>
> Then get into why the ones that look like the
> "completions" or "saturations", don't pan out,
> about incompleteness and, continuity (density,
> continuity, of the "spaces" of the things).
>
> Also showing of course that with _bounded_ inputs,
> that naive sorts coverings eventually do cover bounds.
>
> Then like "at what cost" and "you want it when".
>
>
>

"Look it up"?

You're getting into things finite and infinite.

Completeness results precede incompleteness results.

"Related rates" effect why some problems
are not tractable given means of various orders.

Chaitin's Omega is the name of a mathematical constant,
that is the probability that a random program halts.
It's value is un-known, but according to a model of
unbounded terms, in the limit, that Chaitin contrived,
he sees it about 0.85. Consider what it means, that,
according to various laws of large numbers, it might
be 0.01, 0.99, or various according to the usual
differences from the mean of the Gauss' bell curve
normal distribution, various offsets according to
the standard deviations, from that.

So, he computes this, without testing all programs
for Halts.

The "ergodic", is a description, of the behavior
of a sequence over time, in the unbounded, and,
variously, in the infinite, or as it's drawn
high or low, the entropic, in the ergodic.
These are for example Markov chains, and allll
the theory that goes into neural nets and vector
machines and other usual flow models of machine
learning, is based on it.

Now, getting into the infinite, and, "law(s) of
large numbers", and "convergence criteria variously",
vis-a-vis classical probabilities and the classical
law of large numbers, effects that the law(s) of
large numbers "solve" things in the complete by
the continuous.

So, you may not overclock your Turing machine to
infinity, but it does have the unbounded, and then
it's for matters of deduction, for what results in
the spaces of terms of the infinite in their large
numbers both down and across, the way(s) it goes.

Also, for any program and input, there _is_ a
program that determines whether it halts.
There're inexistence proofs the general,
while, existence proofs the specific.

You know, if you're shining a spotlight at
the point at infinity, don't leave them in
the dark stumbling over desks on their way out.

Somebody might get sued.

On 2/29/2024 4:38 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:29 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a
>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>
>
> So, what is the correct answer of this problem ?: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>
> The same, what is the correct answer of the halting problem in your opinion?
>

All incorrect questions are rejected as invalid 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 Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:38 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:29 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > > > > > > > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Selective memory?
> > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I simplify that down to this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> > > > > > > > > a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> > > > > > > > > flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> > > > > > > > > answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> > > > > > > > > excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> > > > > > > > > these decision problems decidable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > > > > > > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a
> > > > > > > > description
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
> > > > > > > > continue
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > forever....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
> > > > > > > > terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
> > > > > > > > interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
> > > > > > > > problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
> > > > > > > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not the halting problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is another problem (not the HP neither)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The halting problem is one of many problems that is
> > > > > only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
> > > > > incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
> > > > > (thus incorrect) question.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
> > > that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
> > > undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
> > > domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
> > > to the Halting Problem and many others.
> > >
> >
> > So, what is the correct answer of this problem ?: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time is
> > it?"
> >
> > The same, what is the correct answer of the halting problem in your opinion?
> >
>
> All incorrect questions are rejected as invalid input.
>

On 2/29/24 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 29/02/24 01:03, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> Because H is required to always halt we can know that
>>> Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn
>>> thus H merely needs to report on that.
>>>
>>> // Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to Ĥ.Hq0
>>> // Ĥ.Hq0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>> // H transitions to Ĥ.Hqy for halts and Ĥ.Hqn for does not halt
>>> // ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the Ĥ.Hqy state
>>> //
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn    // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ it contradicts whatever value that Ĥ.H
>>> returns making Ĥ self-contradictory.
>>>
>>
>> was there a purpose to posting this nonsense again? You might be
>> automatically spam-filtered if you keep posting the same post so many
>> times.
>
> All of the rebuttals have been incorrect.
>

Yes, all of YOUR rebuttals have been incorrect.

You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.

The fact that you just repeat your claims, shows that you have nothing
to support it.

On 2/29/24 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 10:00 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 29/02/24 16:49, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 4:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 29/02/24 01:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Because H is required to always halt we can know that
>>>>> Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn
>>>>> thus H merely needs to report on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> // Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to Ĥ.Hq0
>>>>> // Ĥ.Hq0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>>> // H transitions to Ĥ.Hqy for halts and Ĥ.Hqn for does not halt
>>>>> // ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the Ĥ.Hqy state
>>>>> //
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn    // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>> halt
>>>>>
>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ it contradicts whatever value that Ĥ.H
>>>>> returns making Ĥ self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> was there a purpose to posting this nonsense again? You might be
>>>> automatically spam-filtered if you keep posting the same post so
>>>> many times.
>>>
>>> All of the rebuttals have been incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Then why don't you explain how each one is incorrect?
>
> I did and you ignored them.

Nope, you just made more incorrect claims.

On 2/29/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:45 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 29/02/24 02:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 7:24 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>> On 29/02/2024 00:37, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>>>> If you're going to be going with the contradiction argument that
>>>>>> dominates this group, rather than saying you "construct" a counter
>>>>>> example, say that you "select" it from the set of all programs, as
>>>>>> though it already existed.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> But I do like the idea when applied to the better "no TM decides
>>>>> halting" proof.  We can number all TMs, and then "select" at least one
>>>>> input that TM number 1 get wrong.  Then we can select at least one the
>>>>> TM number 2 gets wrong and so on.  For every actual TM, there
>>>>> really is
>>>>> one we can find to show that it fails to decide halting.
>>>>
>>>>      Is there not a problem in that the "selection" is not computable?
>>>> TM#1 with input [whatever] can do one of four things:  fail to halt;
>>>> halt
>>>> in some state other than "yes"/"no";  halt "yes";  or halt "no".
>>>> But we
>>>> don't [and cannot] know in general which of these applies.
>>>
>>>> So we can't
>>>> "really find" one it gets wrong, only show that one exists.
>>>
>>> Excellent point. Diagonalization is not very informative.
>>
>> That's incorrect. Diagonalization in this case is constructive - given
>> any Turing machine, we can easily find an input which it fails. In
>> some cases it might be uncomputable to know exactly how it fails
>> (whether it loops forever or eventually halts in the wrong state) but
>> we know it's one of those two. In many cases it IS computable to know
>> exactly how it fails.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn     // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> the actual behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩. We already know that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must
> transition to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn, H merely needs to see which one.
>

And ALL H's given the same input, will give the same answer.

Your ignoring of this just shows that you are just an ignorant
patholopgical liar.

You have been given an opertunity to show how it could differ, and have
failed to show any evidence, proviung that you claim is incorrect, as
well as your "knowledge" of the field.

On 2/29/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>
>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>
>
> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.

Nope.

It is the mathematical state space of the machine, and the contents of
its tape.

>
> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.

But it doesn't

Note, you prove yourself ignorant by repeating that incorrect claim, and
show that your logic is based on lies rooted in category errors

>
> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> incoherence find it.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
>

Which you just don't understand what he is saying, as you have admitted.

On 2/29/2024 4:55 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:38 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:29 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a
>>>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>>>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>>>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>>>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>>>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, what is the correct answer of this problem ?: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time is
>>> it?"
>>>
>>> The same, what is the correct answer of the halting problem in your opinion?
>>>
>>
>> All incorrect questions are rejected as invalid input.
>>
>
> The question is: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" (or the halting problem).
>
> why you answer the incoherent "All incorrect questions are rejected as invalid input."?
>

On 2/29/2024 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 29/02/24 01:03, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> Because H is required to always halt we can know that
>>>> Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn
>>>> thus H merely needs to report on that.
>>>>
>>>> // Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to Ĥ.Hq0
>>>> // Ĥ.Hq0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>> // H transitions to Ĥ.Hqy for halts and Ĥ.Hqn for does not halt
>>>> // ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the Ĥ.Hqy state
>>>> //
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn    // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ it contradicts whatever value that Ĥ.H
>>>> returns making Ĥ self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> was there a purpose to posting this nonsense again? You might be
>>> automatically spam-filtered if you keep posting the same post so many
>>> times.
>>
>> All of the rebuttals have been incorrect.
>>
>
> Yes, all of YOUR rebuttals have been incorrect.
>
> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
> The fact that you just repeat your claims, shows that you have nothing
> to support it.

That is the same rhetoric entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning
(REBoaSR) form of most of your rebuttals. Those that have more than
this are addressed. Once I have proven my point then your rebuttal
becomes (REBoaSR). The only way that I can tell that I have proved
my point to you is that your rebuttals becomes nonsense or (REBoaSR).

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 18:17 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:55 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 4:38 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:29 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish..
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Selective memory?
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I simplify that down to this.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> > > > > > > > > > > a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> > > > > > > > > > > flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> > > > > > > > > > > answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question..
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> > > > > > > > > > > excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> > > > > > > > > > > these decision problems decidable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > > > > > > > > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a
> > > > > > > > > > description
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > continue
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > forever....
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
> > > > > > > > > > terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
> > > > > > > > > > interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
> > > > > > > > > > problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but
> > > > > > > > > > POOP.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
> > > > > > > > > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is not the halting problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is another problem (not the HP neither)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The halting problem is one of many problems that is
> > > > > > > only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
> > > > > > > incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
> > > > > > > (thus incorrect) question.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
> > > > > that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
> > > > > undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
> > > > > domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
> > > > > to the Halting Problem and many others.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, what is the correct answer of this problem ?: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time
> > > > is
> > > > it?"
> > > >
> > > > The same, what is the correct answer of the halting problem in your opinion?
> > > >
> > >
> > > All incorrect questions are rejected as invalid input.
> > >
> >
> > The question is: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" (or the halting problem).
> >
> > why you answer the incoherent "All incorrect questions are rejected as invalid input."?
> >
>
> The key issue with decision theory is that deciders are required to
> correctly answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) questions.
>

On 2/29/2024 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 10:00 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 29/02/24 16:49, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 29/02/24 01:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because H is required to always halt we can know that
>>>>>> Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn
>>>>>> thus H merely needs to report on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to Ĥ.Hq0
>>>>>> // Ĥ.Hq0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>>>> // H transitions to Ĥ.Hqy for halts and Ĥ.Hqn for does not halt
>>>>>> // ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the Ĥ.Hqy state
>>>>>> //
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn    // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ it contradicts whatever value that Ĥ.H
>>>>>> returns making Ĥ self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> was there a purpose to posting this nonsense again? You might be
>>>>> automatically spam-filtered if you keep posting the same post so
>>>>> many times.
>>>>
>>>> All of the rebuttals have been incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why don't you explain how each one is incorrect?
>>
>> I did and you ignored them.
>
> Nope, you just made more incorrect claims.

The scope of my current work has changed It is not that the
halting problem can be solved, it is that the halting problem
proofs were always wrong about the undecidability of the
halting problem.

One fundamental change that we can make to my prior presentations
is that we can now say that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer
because it is not reporting on the behavior of the direct execution
of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

The correct common assumption that two identical machines
operating on the same input will necessarily derive the
same result does not apply to
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ versus Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ or H1(D,D) versions H(D,D)

The verifiably correct execution trace of H1(D,D) that
includes as a part of it the verifiably correct execution
trace of H(D,D).

Disagreeing with these verifiably correct execution traces
is analogous to disagreeing with first grade arithmetic.

The part that you could never understand is that an input
to a machine that has not yet been aborted is not the same
input to an identical machine after this input has already
been aborted by another copy of itself.

You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
examine the details.

You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
examine the details.

You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
examine the details.

You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
examine the details.

You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
examine the details.

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

On 2/29/2024 5:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:45 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 29/02/24 02:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 7:24 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>> On 29/02/2024 00:37, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>>>>> If you're going to be going with the contradiction argument that
>>>>>>> dominates this group, rather than saying you "construct" a counter
>>>>>>> example, say that you "select" it from the set of all programs, as
>>>>>>> though it already existed.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> But I do like the idea when applied to the better "no TM decides
>>>>>> halting" proof.  We can number all TMs, and then "select" at least
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> input that TM number 1 get wrong.  Then we can select at least one
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> TM number 2 gets wrong and so on.  For every actual TM, there
>>>>>> really is
>>>>>> one we can find to show that it fails to decide halting.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Is there not a problem in that the "selection" is not computable?
>>>>> TM#1 with input [whatever] can do one of four things:  fail to
>>>>> halt; halt
>>>>> in some state other than "yes"/"no";  halt "yes";  or halt "no".
>>>>> But we
>>>>> don't [and cannot] know in general which of these applies.
>>>>
>>>>> So we can't
>>>>> "really find" one it gets wrong, only show that one exists.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point. Diagonalization is not very informative.
>>>
>>> That's incorrect. Diagonalization in this case is constructive -
>>> given any Turing machine, we can easily find an input which it fails.
>>> In some cases it might be uncomputable to know exactly how it fails
>>> (whether it loops forever or eventually halts in the wrong state) but
>>> we know it's one of those two. In many cases it IS computable to know
>>> exactly how it fails.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn     // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>> the actual behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩. We already know that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must
>> transition to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn, H merely needs to see which one.
>>
>
> And ALL H's given the same input, will give the same answer.
>
> Your ignoring of this just shows that you are just an ignorant
> patholopgical liar.
>
> You have been given an opertunity to show how it could differ, and have
> failed to show any evidence, proviung that you claim is incorrect, as
> well as your "knowledge" of the field.

I explained all this in a prior reply

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

On 2/29/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>
>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>
>>
>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>
> Nope.
>
> It is the mathematical state space of the machine, and the contents of
> its tape.
>
>>
>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>
> But it doesn't
>
> Note, you prove yourself ignorant by repeating that incorrect claim, and
> show that your logic is based on lies rooted in category errors
>
>>
>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>> incoherence find it.
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>>
>
> Which you just don't understand what he is saying, as you have admitted.

*My perfect understanding of that quote is proved below*

The key issue with decision theory is that deciders are required to
correctly answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) questions.

The key difficulty with resolving this issue that most modern day
philosophers do not understand that both of these questions are equally
incorrect:
(a) Is this sentence true or false: "What time it is?"
(b) Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."

They do not understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a truth
bearer.

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

On 2/29/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/29/24 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 10:00 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 29/02/24 16:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/02/24 01:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because H is required to always halt we can know that
>>>>>>> Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn
>>>>>>> thus H merely needs to report on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to Ĥ.Hq0
>>>>>>> // Ĥ.Hq0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>>>>> // H transitions to Ĥ.Hqy for halts and Ĥ.Hqn for does not halt
>>>>>>> // ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the Ĥ.Hqy state
>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn    // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ it contradicts whatever value that Ĥ.H
>>>>>>> returns making Ĥ self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> was there a purpose to posting this nonsense again? You might be
>>>>>> automatically spam-filtered if you keep posting the same post so
>>>>>> many times.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the rebuttals have been incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why don't you explain how each one is incorrect?
>>>
>>> I did and you ignored them.
>>
>> Nope, you just made more incorrect claims.
>
> The scope of my current work has changed It is not that the
> halting problem can be solved, it is that the halting problem
> proofs were always wrong about the undecidability of the
> halting problem.
>

So, you are admitting that you are confused.

If you admit that we can't "solve" the Halting Problem, meaning making
an H that gets the right answer to all input, then BY DEFINITION, that
means the Halting Problem is uncomputable, which means it is undecidable.

That term MEANS, that there does not exist a Turing Machine that can
correct compute that result for all inputs, which is EXACTLY what you
are conceeding.

> One fundamental change that we can make to my prior presentations
> is that we can now say that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer
> because it is not reporting on the behavior of the direct execution
> of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Right, and if H is a computation, which it must be if it is a Turing
Machine or Equivalent, then NO COPY of H can get the right answer.

>
> The correct common assumption that two identical machines
> operating on the same input will necessarily derive the
> same result does not apply to
> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ versus Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ or H1(D,D) versions H(D,D)

H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must give the same answer, as must H1 if it is
actually a copy of H.

>
> The verifiably correct execution trace of H1(D,D) that
> includes as a part of it the verifiably correct execution
> trace of H(D,D).

Nope. Your "trace" just shows that H1 and H are not the same
computation, and imply that H never was one in the first place, so not a
Turing Machine Equivalent.

>
> Disagreeing with these verifiably correct execution traces
> is analogous to disagreeing with first grade arithmetic.

Nope. You making the false claims just shows you are a ignorant
pathalogical liar.

>
> The part that you could never understand is that an input
> to a machine that has not yet been aborted is not the same
> input to an identical machine after this input has already
> been aborted by another copy of itself.

The action of the machine on the input has NO affect on the property of
the behavior of the machine that input represents.

If you take a picture of a building, and then distroy the picture, has
the building changed?

Nope.

The input the describes the machine has no more power over the machine
it represents than that picture.

The machine defines the input, not the input the machine.

>
> You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
> examine the details.
>
> You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
> examine the details.
>
> You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
> examine the details.
>
> You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
> examine the details.
>
> You simply assumed that I must be wrong and refused to
> examine the details.
>

Nope. YOU assume you are correct, even though you admit you don't know
the actual meaning of the words, and ignore the corrections given to you,

That make you an ignorant, pathological lying idiot.

On 2/29/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/29/24 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 4:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 29/02/24 01:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Because H is required to always halt we can know that
>>>>> Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn
>>>>> thus H merely needs to report on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> // Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to Ĥ.Hq0
>>>>> // Ĥ.Hq0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>>> // H transitions to Ĥ.Hqy for halts and Ĥ.Hqn for does not halt
>>>>> // ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the Ĥ.Hqy state
>>>>> //
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn    // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>> halt
>>>>>
>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ it contradicts whatever value that Ĥ.H
>>>>> returns making Ĥ self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> was there a purpose to posting this nonsense again? You might be
>>>> automatically spam-filtered if you keep posting the same post so
>>>> many times.
>>>
>>> All of the rebuttals have been incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, all of YOUR rebuttals have been incorrect.
>>
>> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>> The fact that you just repeat your claims, shows that you have nothing
>> to support it.
>
> That is the same rhetoric entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning
> (REBoaSR) form of most of your rebuttals. Those that have more than
> this are addressed. Once I have proven my point then your rebuttal
> becomes (REBoaSR). The only way that I can tell that I have proved
> my point to you is that your rebuttals becomes nonsense or (REBoaSR).
>

That you call quoting back DEFINITIONS to be jus "rhetoric" just proves
your ignorance.

I could say the same about you, but the your reasoning has ALWAYS been
REBoaSR.

And it seems, you don't even know what those words mean.