Rocksolid Light

Welcome to Rocksolid Light

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

19 May, 2024: Line wrapping has been changed to be more consistent with Usenet standards.
 If you find that it is broken please let me know here rocksolid.nodes.help

devel / comp.theory / Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

SubjectAuthor
* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
+* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|+- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|`* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
| +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
| +* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
| |`- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
| `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|  +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|  `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|   +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|   `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|    +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|    +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|    `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|     +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|     `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      +* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      |+* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      ||+- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      ||+* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      |||+- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      |||`* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      ||| `- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      ||`* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      || +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      || `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      ||  +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      ||  `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      ||   +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      ||   `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      ||    +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      ||    `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|      ||     `- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      |`- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|      `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|       +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|       `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|        +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|        `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|         +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|         `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|          +* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|          |+- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|          |`* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|          | +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|          | `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|          |  `- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|          +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|          `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|           +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|           `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|            +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|            `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|             +- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
|             `* The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)olcott
|              `- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon
`- The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)Richard Damon

Pages:123
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48934&group=comp.theory#48934

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 18:33:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:33:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="128092"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eek/7XjjzneJhznUdt2BS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ng+Vqq5Eh7f/Cx1TN0HF8yYVPXk=
In-Reply-To: <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:33 UTC

On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>> for this decider.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>
>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>
>>
>
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
*Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*

> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
> entirely different questions even though they
> have the exact same words.
>
> That other people are ignorant of these things
> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugf93r$45hn$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48935&group=comp.theory#48935

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 18:43:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 192
Message-ID: <ugf93r$45hn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf7c0$3o5k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:43:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CofxK23GryO878KB/XT4s"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2zQUQRieG5cAGNA4PGz8O/XuKPg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugf7c0$3o5k$1@dont-email.me>
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:43 UTC

On 10/14/2023 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>
>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>
>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>> machine code.
>>
>> This proves that
>> Does your input halt on its input?
>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>
>
> The behavior of D simulated by H is the behavior of the input to H.
> The behavior of D simulated by H1 is the behavior of the input to H1.
>
> The behavior of D(D) directly executed by main() is the same as
> the behavior of D simulated by H1.
>
> The behavior of D simulated by H is not the same as the behavior of D
> simulated by H1 because D simulated by H calls its simulator and D
> simulated by H1 does not call its simulator.
>
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48936&group=comp.theory#48936

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 18:49:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:49:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EVUG99ugPXxJQ4S5B6WoF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9i52AlA3sQcNQLKyP1VRLzD4gHs=
In-Reply-To: <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:49 UTC

On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>
>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>> have the exact same words.
>>>
>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>
>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>> machine code.
>
> This proves that
> Does your input halt on its input?
> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>

Because D calls H it is necessarily incorrect for H to simply ignore
this call when H is examining the behavior of D.

Thus the call to H from D is a mandatory aspect of the halt status
determination for H(D,D).

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugf9gv$1gpne$7@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48937&group=comp.theory#48937

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:50:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugf9gv$1gpne$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:50:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:50 UTC

On 10/14/23 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>
>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>
>
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>

You are just flogging the dead red herring.

It doesn't matter, as that isn't the form of the question.

You are just proving your stupidity, and showing your duplicity.

Your native tounge seems to be LIES.

>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>> entirely different questions even though they
>> have the exact same words.
>>
>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>
>

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfa17$1gpne$8@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48938&group=comp.theory#48938

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:59:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfa17$1gpne$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf7c0$3o5k$1@dont-email.me> <ugf93r$45hn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:59:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugf93r$45hn$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 Oct 2023 23:59 UTC

On 10/14/23 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>>
>>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>>
>>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>>> machine code.
>>>
>>> This proves that
>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>>
>>
>> The behavior of D simulated by H is the behavior of the input to H.
>> The behavior of D simulated by H1 is the behavior of the input to H1.
>>
>> The behavior of D(D) directly executed by main() is the same as
>> the behavior of D simulated by H1.
>>
>> The behavior of D simulated by H is not the same as the behavior of D
>> simulated by H1 because D simulated by H calls its simulator and D
>> simulated by H1 does not call its simulator.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Alternatively when the behavior of D(D) directly executed in Main()
> is the behavior that H must report on:
>
> (a) This is <not> the behavior of the input thus the requirement
> for H to report on the behavior of a non-input violates the definition
> of a decider that must always only report on its input.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48939&group=comp.theory#48939

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:02:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:02:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/O29uVAUxdA6o7rJUN1uPq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oBkvQeKkwSapp1pFVcQzlTXcifk=
In-Reply-To: <ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:02 UTC

On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>
>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>
>
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*

This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.

When everyone in the world disagrees with a true statement
(such as the shape of the Earth prior to Pythagoras)
that does not make it any less true.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfa70$1gpne$9@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48940&group=comp.theory#48940

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:02:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfa70$1gpne$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:02:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:02 UTC

On 10/14/23 7:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>
>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>
>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>> machine code.
>>
>> This proves that
>> Does your input halt on its input?
>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>
>
> Because D calls H it is necessarily incorrect for H to simply ignore
> this call when H is examining the behavior of D.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48941&group=comp.theory#48941

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:06:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:06:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18sG2/CITX5woV5XD2hQ7DA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4N4vt+pxOjDRo23wG4cUKAvRnKQ=
In-Reply-To: <ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:06 UTC

On 10/14/2023 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>
>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>
>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>> machine code.
>>
>> This proves that
>> Does your input halt on its input?
>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>
>
> Because D calls H it is necessarily incorrect for H to simply ignore
> this call when H is examining the behavior of D.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfaqc$1gpne$10@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48942&group=comp.theory#48942

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:13:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfaqc$1gpne$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:13:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:13 UTC

On 10/14/23 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>
>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>
>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>
> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.

Nope. False equivalence. Category error.

The correct answer exists, H just can't give it.

The Halting Question is not avout the decider, but asking if we CAN make
a decider that always gives the right answer.

Yes, in one aspect, the fact that H can't give the right answer is the
proof of the theorem that there is no machine possible that can answer
the halting question, which becomes the simple proof that things exist
that can't be know which seems to blow up your mind.

>
> When everyone in the world disagrees with a true statement
> (such as the shape of the Earth prior to Pythagoras)
> that does not make it any less true.
>

And when YOU disagree with a actual fact, it makes you WRONG.

And an IDIOT for keep on insisting on it when shown your error.

As I have said, it seems your native language is just lies.

You just don't understand the basics of logic, because, it seems, you
can't handle the truth.

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48943&group=comp.theory#48943

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:18:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:18:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K8p3C7ej7HGX7opr4gu0S"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WQDSOBqADBN3DdSyd5tiyXIHoXg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:18 UTC

On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>
>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>
>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>
> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.

People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
question then the question posed to Carol is a different
question than when posed to anyone else.

The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfba5$1gpne$11@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48944&group=comp.theory#48944

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:21:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfba5$1gpne$11@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me> <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:21:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:21 UTC

On 10/14/23 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>>
>>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>>
>>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>>> machine code.
>>>
>>> This proves that
>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>>
>>
>> Because D calls H it is necessarily incorrect for H to simply ignore
>> this call when H is examining the behavior of D.
>
> When H does see this call then it can definitely determine
> that D simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfbm6$1gpne$12@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48945&group=comp.theory#48945

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:27:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfbm6$1gpne$12@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:27:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:27 UTC

On 10/14/23 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>>
>> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
>> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
>> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.
>
> People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
> ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
> of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
> question then the question posed to Carol is a different
> question than when posed to anyone else.
>
> The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
> in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.
>
>

And you are flogging a dead Red Herring, because the question to Carol
is not the Halting Question.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfc3s$45hn$6@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48946&group=comp.theory#48946

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.hispagatos.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:35:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <ugfc3s$45hn$6@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me> <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:35:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NNSRizuH8uX/kRvu7VmH6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U9xs2uWvNTWqxgFXe2HxjZ07vaQ=
In-Reply-To: <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:35 UTC

On 10/14/2023 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>>
>>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>>
>>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>>> machine code.
>>>
>>> This proves that
>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>>
>>
>> Because D calls H it is necessarily incorrect for H to simply ignore
>> this call when H is examining the behavior of D.
>
> When H does see this call then it can definitely determine
> that D simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48947&group=comp.theory#48947

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:38:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:38:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196VXaR/VDTpeoBPHNj7hSa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UO9swbDSctuK+wwi2DBYvHvU8kE=
In-Reply-To: <ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:38 UTC

On 10/14/2023 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>>
>> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
>> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
>> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.
>
> People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
> ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
> of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
> question then the question posed to Carol is a different
> question than when posed to anyone else.
>
> The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
> in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.

The point here is that the blame for not answering Carol's
question does belong with the question and thus does not
belong with Carol.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48948&group=comp.theory#48948

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 19:44:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:44:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="136759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ytjulEqaij/WEGcZukS7F"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Dk9BUhWbP4sKICqb70Cego4j6E=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:44 UTC

On 10/14/2023 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>>>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>>>
>>> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
>>> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
>>> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.
>>
>> People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
>> ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
>> of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
>> question then the question posed to Carol is a different
>> question than when posed to anyone else.
>>
>> The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
>> in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.
>
> The point here is that the blame for not answering Carol's
> question does belong with the question and thus does not
> belong with Carol.
>
> If Carol was infallible and all knowing she still could not
> correctly answer her question.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfdin$1gpne$13@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48949&group=comp.theory#48949

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:00:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfdin$1gpne$13@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
<ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:00:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:00 UTC

On 10/14/23 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

> The reason that I pursue this with such passion is that
> it currently looks like humans are probably going to
> end all life on Earth because of disinformation of one
> kind or another.
>
> If we had some system to very reliably divide lies
> from truth the end of life caused by humans might
> be prevented.
>

And you run into the problem that it has been proven that not all true
statements are provable, or all false statement refutable.

Trying to make the impossible so would just break you purpose.

This doesn't mean that MOST "disinformation" can be disproven, just not
all false statement.

Your problem is you are too stupid to understand the actual nature of
the problem, and have become part of it.

Your actions just give comfort to the other "kooks".

The answer isn't trying to prove the unprovable, but actually understand
the real meaning of truth and working with it.

Though, to be honest, it isn't that the disinformation can't be proven
false, it is that people won't believe that it is. THis isn't actually a
"Truth" issue, but more of a moral and education issue.

And you aren't helping that with your lies.

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfdnt$1gpne$14@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48950&group=comp.theory#48950

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:02:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfdnt$1gpne$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me> <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
<ugfc3s$45hn$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:02:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ugfc3s$45hn$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:02 UTC

On 10/14/23 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect within the
>>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has
>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no
>>>>>>>>>> element of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack
>>>>>>>>>> then the question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>>>
>>>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>>>> machine code.
>>>>
>>>> This proves that
>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because D calls H it is necessarily incorrect for H to simply ignore
>>> this call when H is examining the behavior of D.
>>
>> When H does see this call then it can definitely determine
>> that D simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>
>>
>
> If we say that H's simulation of D is incorrect then that
> requires H to ignore that D calls H and we know this is
> incorrect.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfdo3$1gpne$15@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48951&group=comp.theory#48951

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:02:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfdo3$1gpne$15@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:02:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1599214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:02 UTC

On 10/14/23 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>>>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>>>
>>> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
>>> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
>>> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.
>>
>> People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
>> ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
>> of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
>> question then the question posed to Carol is a different
>> question than when posed to anyone else.
>>
>> The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
>> in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.
>
> The point here is that the blame for not answering Carol's
> question does belong with the question and thus does not
> belong with Carol.
>
> If Carol was infallible and all knowing she still could not
> correctly answer her question.
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfe6n$50jg$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48952&group=comp.theory#48952

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:10:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 184
Message-ID: <ugfe6n$50jg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
<ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:10:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="164464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sfUXDhuq4Sv477RT+5cfr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3r+XApRDx9If8EoGT83tU8aqsyo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me>
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:10 UTC

On 10/14/2023 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect within the
>>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has
>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no
>>>>>>>>>> element of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack
>>>>>>>>>> then the question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>>>>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>>>>
>>>> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
>>>> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
>>>> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.
>>>
>>> People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
>>> ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
>>> of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
>>> question then the question posed to Carol is a different
>>> question than when posed to anyone else.
>>>
>>> The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
>>> in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.
>>
>> The point here is that the blame for not answering Carol's
>> question does belong with the question and thus does not
>> belong with Carol.
>>
>> If Carol was infallible and all knowing she still could not
>> correctly answer her question.
>
> The reason that I pursue this with such passion is that
> it currently looks like humans are probably going to
> end all life on Earth because of disinformation of one
> kind or another.
>
> If we had some system to very reliably divide lies
> from truth the end of life caused by humans might
> be prevented.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfeeu$50jg$2@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48953&group=comp.theory#48953

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:15:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <ugfeeu$50jg$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me> <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
<ugfc3s$45hn$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:15:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="164464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xkb3inYfWu3S370hvfJk7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:56gcVs+LTfYnnxqKYvmbNgInB90=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugfc3s$45hn$6@dont-email.me>
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:15 UTC

On 10/14/2023 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect within the
>>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has
>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no
>>>>>>>>>> element of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack
>>>>>>>>>> then the question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>>>
>>>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>>>> machine code.
>>>>
>>>> This proves that
>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because D calls H it is necessarily incorrect for H to simply ignore
>>> this call when H is examining the behavior of D.
>>
>> When H does see this call then it can definitely determine
>> that D simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>
>>
>
> If we say that H's simulation of D is incorrect then that
> requires H to ignore that D calls H and we know this is
> incorrect.
>
> The only alternative in this dichotomy is for H to pay
> attention to the fact that D calls H.
>
> When we pay complete attention to the fact that D does call
> H then another detail is that there is nothing in D to prevent
> this from endlessly repeating.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfeka$50jg$3@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48954&group=comp.theory#48954

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:18:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <ugfeka$50jg$3@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:18:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="164464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19J2jIKaNX95gsQNIhPd+5H"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xYKfj6UOzj4C18vK+7PiSnXAuLY=
In-Reply-To: <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:18 UTC

On 10/14/2023 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>>>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>>>
>>> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
>>> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
>>> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.
>>
>> People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
>> ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
>> of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
>> question then the question posed to Carol is a different
>> question than when posed to anyone else.
>>
>> The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
>> in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.
>
> The point here is that the blame for not answering Carol's
> question does belong with the question and thus does not
> belong with Carol.
>
> If Carol was infallible and all knowing she still could not
> correctly answer her question.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfens$1hu21$1@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48955&group=comp.theory#48955

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:19:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugfens$1hu21$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
<ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me> <ugfe6n$50jg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:19:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1636417"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ugfe6n$50jg$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:19 UTC

Note, Olcott is so confused on procedures that he doesn't know enough to
reply to the mesage he is replying to.

This shows you can not trust him. He is psychotic.

On 10/14/23 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:

>> The reason that I pursue this with such passion is that
>> it currently looks like humans are probably going to
>> end all life on Earth because of disinformation of one
>> kind or another.
>>
>> If we had some system to very reliably divide lies
>> from truth the end of life caused by humans might
>> be prevented.
>
> Every element of human knowledge is provable on the
> basis of established facts. We don't need to prove
> the Goldbach conjecture to prove that:

KNOWLEDGE, not TRUTH.

You don't understand the difference between these.

>
> (a) There is no evidence that voting fraud changed
>     the outcome of the 2020 election.
>
> (b) Climate change directly caused by humans is very
>     severe and must be addressed.
>
> (c) Putin's attack on Ukraine is nothing more than
>     an attempted land grab.
>
> The end of life on Earth will probably be directly
> caused by one of more humans annihilating the others
> to support their own personal concept of nationalism.
>

And it seems you want to hasten it by confusing what is truth.

YOU are guilty of that infraction, and will be punished for your sins.

YOU are proving your stupidity.

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugfevi$50jg$4@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48956&group=comp.theory#48956

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polcott2@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:24:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <ugfevi$50jg$4@dont-email.me>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
<ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me> <ugfe6n$50jg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5df8fce7e6461a085af6076dda36bfc8";
logging-data="164464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hs3zC+a0OV6RIp0Zlxpbf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:79rgCxBV9kEMwn3UCAXG7EwGZaE=
In-Reply-To: <ugfe6n$50jg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:24 UTC

On 10/14/2023 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked changes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect within the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no
>>>>>>>>>>> element of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack
>>>>>>>>>>> then the question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the
>>>>>>>>>> answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this yes/no question?
>>>>>> *Yet another loophole was discovered and is acknowledged*
>>>>>
>>>>> This is precisely analogous to a halt decider H that is required to
>>>>> return a Boolean value corresponding to the behavior of an input D
>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever value that D returns.
>>>>
>>>> People that do not know how things work will incorrectly
>>>> ignore that linguistics understands that when the context
>>>> of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this
>>>> question then the question posed to Carol is a different
>>>> question than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> The question posed to Carol <is> an incorrect yes/no question
>>>> in that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> The point here is that the blame for not answering Carol's
>>> question does belong with the question and thus does not
>>> belong with Carol.
>>>
>>> If Carol was infallible and all knowing she still could not
>>> correctly answer her question.
>>
>> The reason that I pursue this with such passion is that
>> it currently looks like humans are probably going to
>> end all life on Earth because of disinformation of one
>> kind or another.
>>
>> If we had some system to very reliably divide lies
>> from truth the end of life caused by humans might
>> be prevented.
>
> Every element of human knowledge is provable on the
> basis of established facts. We don't need to prove
> the Goldbach conjecture to prove that:
>
> (a) There is no evidence that voting fraud changed
>     the outcome of the 2020 election.
>
> (b) Climate change directly caused by humans is very
>     severe and must be addressed.
>
> (c) Putin's attack on Ukraine is nothing more than
>     an attempted land grab.
>
> The end of life on Earth will probably be directly
> caused by one of more humans annihilating the others
> to support their own personal concept of nationalism.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugffkq$1hui8$1@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48957&group=comp.theory#48957

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:35:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugffkq$1hui8$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf42h$32qh$1@dont-email.me> <ugf50t$32qh$2@dont-email.me>
<ugf9f3$45hn$2@dont-email.me> <ugfae5$45hn$4@dont-email.me>
<ugfc3s$45hn$6@dont-email.me> <ugfeeu$50jg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:35:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1636936"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ugfeeu$50jg$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:35 UTC

Note, Olcott is so confused on procedures that he doesn't know enough to
reply to the mesage he is replying to, (but is just arguing with himself?)

This shows you can not trust him. He is psychotic.

On 10/14/23 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:

>> If we say that H's simulation of D is incorrect then that
>> requires H to ignore that D calls H and we know this is
>> incorrect.
>>
>> The only alternative in this dichotomy is for H to pay
>> attention to the fact that D calls H.
>>
>> When we pay complete attention to the fact that D does call
>> H then another detail is that there is nothing in D to prevent
>> this from endlessly repeating.
>
> When H does not ignore that D calls H then this
> logically entails that H correctly determines
> that it must abort its simulation of D.
>

Nope. How is the wrong answer (that D(D) doesn't halt when it does)
correctly determined?

When H sees that D calls H (which it only does because you have broken
your Turing Equivalency) it needs to take its own behavior into account.

For H to decide to return 0 based on an assumption that it doesn't
return is just failed logic, as is ALL your logic it seems.

You seem to think it is ok to work from false statements to make you
proofs. How does this align with your claim you want to rid the workd of
disinformation.

You are using disinformation yourself, so you can't be fighting it. You
are just showing your Hypocrisy.

Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

<ugffp1$1hui8$2@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://news.novabbs.org/devel/article-flat.php?id=48958&group=comp.theory#48958

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:37:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ugffp1$1hui8$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <ug6hpo$1tul9$1@dont-email.me> <ug70ll$217vl$1@dont-email.me>
<ug7gdc$24a55$1@dont-email.me> <ugejl5$3vfnq$1@dont-email.me>
<ugeqpu$13an$1@dont-email.me> <ugesjd$1fmo$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf1if$2du9$1@dont-email.me> <ugf2mf$2mcm$1@dont-email.me>
<ugf8fj$3t2s$1@dont-email.me> <ugfa6s$45hn$3@dont-email.me>
<ugfb5d$45hn$5@dont-email.me> <ugfcan$45hn$7@dont-email.me>
<ugfclg$45hn$8@dont-email.me> <ugfe6n$50jg$1@dont-email.me>
<ugfevi$50jg$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:37:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1636936"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ugfevi$50jg$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:37 UTC

Note, Olcott is so confused on procedures that he doesn't know enough to
reply to the mesage he is replying to, (but is just arguing with himself?)

This shows you can not trust him. He is psychotic.

On 10/14/23 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:

>> Every element of human knowledge is provable on the
>> basis of established facts. We don't need to prove
>> the Goldbach conjecture to prove that:
>>
>> (a) There is no evidence that voting fraud changed
>>      the outcome of the 2020 election.
>>
>> (b) Climate change directly caused by humans is very
>>      severe and must be addressed.
>>
>> (c) Putin's attack on Ukraine is nothing more than
>>      an attempted land grab.
>>
>> The end of life on Earth will probably be directly
>> caused by one of more humans annihilating the others
>> to support their own personal concept of nationalism.
>>
>
> Knowledge <is> a subset of truth
>

Yes, so that means that there is truth that isn't knowledge, and thus
might not be provable.

You don't seem to understand this because your logic is broken.

My statement that you deceitfully snipped:

> KNOWLEDGE, not TRUTH.

> You don't understand the difference between these.

Which you are just confirming

devel / comp.theory / Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference (from 2004)

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor