On 6/27/2004 11:00 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> Peter Olcott says...
>
>>> I think his point is to show that there are yes/no questions that
>>> you can't answer---but that was pointed out to *him* long ago. Somebody
>>> suggested
>>>
>>> Will Peter answer this question negatively?
>>
>> The point that you have been so careful to evade is that
>> the Halting Problem's question IS one of these IMPOSSIBLE
>> QUESTIONS.
>
> It *isn't* an impossible question! It's impossible for *you*
> to answer to answer the above question correctly, but it is
> possible for someone *else* to answer it. My guess is that the
> answer is "no", you will not answer the above question
> negatively.

When we look at this as linguistics then the full meaning of the
question includes the context of who was asked. This means that
the question itself is incorrect.

>
> --
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott

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

On 10/9/23 1:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2004 11:00 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> Peter Olcott says...
>>
>>>> I think his point is to show that there are yes/no questions that
>>>> you can't answer---but that was pointed out to *him* long ago. Somebody
>>>> suggested
>>>>
>>>>      Will Peter answer this question negatively?
>>>
>>> The point that you have been so careful to evade is that
>>> the Halting Problem's question IS one of these IMPOSSIBLE
>>> QUESTIONS.
>>
>> It *isn't* an impossible question! It's impossible for *you*
>> to answer to answer the above question correctly, but it is
>> possible for someone *else* to answer it. My guess is that the
>> answer is "no", you will not answer the above question
>> negatively.
>
> When we look at this as linguistics then the full meaning of the
> question includes the context of who was asked. This means that
> the question itself is incorrect.
>

Except that the answer to a Halting problem is independent of who you
ask, as a given Turing Machine/Input combination will always do the same
thing. Can you actually give a counter example based on the ACTUAL
properties of a Turing Machine? (Answer, NO!)

Your issue is that you don't actually understand what a Turing Machine
is, as you even sort of admit at times.

The H^ applied to the description of H^ will ALWAYS do the same thing
every time it is run. That behavior WILL be dependent on what H applied
to H^ applied to H^ will do, but since H is a Turing Machine, that
behavior is fixed at the definition of H, and thus the behavior of H^ is
fixed.

The fact that it is impossible to design an H that can give the right
answer for the H^ that is built on it just shows that no H can be
designed to answer correctly for all possible Turing Machine description
inputs, which is the claim of the Halting Problem.

The nature of the definition of Turing Machines says that if H is a
Turing Machine, then we CAN build the corresponding H^ machine, and thus
it is a "legal" input to think about.

You argument fails because you don't actually fix your H to be an actual
Turing Machine (or an equivalent) before you start your logic.

Since H^ is a FIXED Turing Machine, when you do the logic of what if H
was different shouldn't change the behavior of H^, as it needs to be the
original machine using the original H.

The fact that your non-turing-equivalent construction shows something
else is just the proof needed to show that it isn't actually a turing
-equivalent mode to the original problem. Your LYING about it doesn't
chang that fact. Remember, H^ by its definition, includes the definition
of the H that it is built on, so when you do "specualtion" of other
behavior, H^ shouldn't see that, because your "alternate" machines
aren't actually H.

You are just proving your stupidity, and the fact that you don't
actually understand the meaning of Truth or Logic.

>>
>> --
>> Daryl McCullough
>> Ithaca, NY
>>
>