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 9:18 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:

>> 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 fact that even if Carol is all knowing and infallible
> she still cannot get the correct answer to her question
> conclusively proves that there is something wrong with
> the question.
>
>

More flogging of dead Red Herring.

There may be something wrong with your question to Carol, but the
Question to the Halt Decider is fundamentally different.

It is asking about the Behavior of a given Program when run, and that
behavior is independent of what machine is trying to decide it.

The fact that this particular program knows what a particular decider is
going to say and makes it wrong, doesn't make the question wrong, it
makes that decider wrong.

You don't understand the difference between volitional beings that can
chose what to do, and deterministic programs that we can predict their
behavior.

The program H can't "choose" in the same sense that Carol does, as H's
choice was fixed the moment it was coded.

On 10/14/2023 8:15 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>

On 10/14/2023 8:18 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 fact that even if Carol is all knowing and infallible
> she still cannot get the correct answer to her question
> conclusively proves that there is something wrong with
> the question.

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 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 8:15 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> I will not ever directly reply to anyone that has
> very consistently been very hateful.
>

Then why do you reply to yourself?

> None-the-less I must move my work forward and this
> very hateful person has proven to provide useful
> feedback.

So, you admit that you are just being a jerk.

>
> There was a loophole in Jack's question that
> no one else ever caught.
>
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
> becomes
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>

Which is still beating a dead Red Herring, because the Halting Question
doesn't ask about the Halt Decider itself.

Thus, your whole argument is invalid.

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 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 8:18 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:

> Even if H is all knowing and infallible H cannot
> possibly return a correct Boolean value corresponding
> to the behavior of D when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>
> The proves that there is something wrong with the problem.
>

Why do you say that?

We KNOW that a "program" can't be "All Knowing", so you are basing your
argument on incorrect data.

Note also, if we consider H to be something (not a "program") that is
"all knowing and infallible" then the things it needs to be deciding on
are ALSO object so of similar capability.

This shows that "Oracle" machines can't predict the behavior of other
"Oracle" machines too.

An Oracle can decide on a Program, because the Program, being a lower
form, can't use the Oracle, and thus breaks the proof.

It comes down to the classic contradiction of the assumption of the
existance of multiple irresistible forces. If there does exist an
irresistible force or an immovable object, it must be singular.

Thus the "ultimate" entity must be singular in being Ultimate, and
doesn't need to decide on itself.

On 10/14/2023 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 8:18 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 fact that even if Carol is all knowing and infallible
>> she still cannot get the correct answer to her question
>> conclusively proves that there is something wrong with
>> the question.
>
> Even if H is all knowing and infallible H cannot
> possibly return a correct Boolean value corresponding
> to the behavior of D when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>
> The proves that there is something wrong with the problem.
>

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 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 8:18 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:
>>> The fact that even if Carol is all knowing and infallible
>>> she still cannot get the correct answer to her question
>>> conclusively proves that there is something wrong with
>>> the question.
>>
>> Even if H is all knowing and infallible H cannot
>> possibly return a correct Boolean value corresponding
>> to the behavior of D when D is defined to do the
>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>
>> The proves that there is something wrong with the problem.
>>
>
> When we hypothesize that H is all knowing and infallible
> as a thought experiment:
>
> We find that this H also cannot possibly correctly predict
> what D will do when D is defined to do the opposite of whatever
> H reports.
>
> *This proves that there is something wrong with the problem*
>

So, you don't answer the objection to your logic, I guess that means you
have no answer and the just repeat your LIE again. as I said:

> hy do you say that?
>
> We KNOW that a "program" can't be "All Knowing", so you are basing your argument on incorrect data.
>
> Note also, if we consider H to be something (not a "program") that is "all knowing and infallible" then the things it needs to be deciding on are ALSO object so of similar capability.
>
> This shows that "Oracle" machines can't predict the behavior of other "Oracle" machines too.
>
> An Oracle can decide on a Program, because the Program, being a lower form, can't use the Oracle, and thus breaks the proof.
>
> It comes down to the classic contradiction of the assumption of the existance of multiple irresistible forces. If there does exist an irresistible force or an immovable object, it must be singular.
>
> Thus the "ultimate" entity must be singular in being Ultimate, and doesn't need to decide on itself.
>
>

Yes, and "All Knowing" oracle machine can not correctly predict the
behavior of another "All Knowing Oracle" machine.

And it proves YOU ARE STUPID, and a LIAR.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Not responding to a correction is an admission you are wrong.

Fsce it, you are just proving you are a FRAUD.

On 10/14/2023 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 8:18 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 fact that even if Carol is all knowing and infallible
>>> she still cannot get the correct answer to her question
>>> conclusively proves that there is something wrong with
>>> the question.
>>
>> Even if H is all knowing and infallible H cannot
>> possibly return a correct Boolean value corresponding
>> to the behavior of D when D is defined to do the
>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>
>> The proves that there is something wrong with the problem.
>>
>
> When we hypothesize that H is all knowing and infallible
> as a thought experiment:
>
> We find that this H also cannot possibly correctly predict
> what D will do when D is defined to do the opposite of whatever
> H reports.
>
> *This proves that there is something wrong with the problem*
>

On 10/14/23 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 8:18 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:

>
> An all knowing and infallible H is not the same thing as
> an Oracle machine. I first used the notion of an all knowing
> machine when investigating the limits of AI in 2014.
> [Is strong AI Possible]

To be "All Knowing", in the sense you are using using it needs to store
all the "facts" about the universe, and thus needs to be bigger than the
universe itself.

Something in a set can't be bigger than the set itself, so you are
presuming an impossibility.

>
> Searle's Chinese Room proves that even an [all knowing] AI
> would still just be gears and pulleys on the inside.
>
> I was able to hypothesize that an [all knowing] AI
> could mimic having a [will of its own] by a sufficiently
> populated goal hierarchy.

Nope. It STILL is a deterministic machine, so the outcome is FULLY
predictable (given time) to any input.

That is NOT "Free Will".

I guess you don't understand the concept. Seems right considering your
background, you are stuck yourself by your past and wrong inputs.

>
> This same [all knowing] AI could not provide Boolean
> value corresponding to the behavior of an input that
> does the opposite of whatever it predicts.

So, That says that the problem space includes machines that are also
"All Knowing", and thus by your claim, have free will; It is impossible
to 100% predict a single instance of the behavior of something with Free
Will.

>
> *This proves there is something wrong with the problem*
>
>

No, it proves your premises are inconsistent. If the decider is a
Program, and also has free will, then the problem to solve also is an
all knowing program that has free will. Since Free Will by its
definition is not predictable, the decider can not work.

Thus, we can not solve the halting problem by using Programs that have
free will.

There also is the fact that the fundamental definitions of a Program are
that it is "deterministic", namely that it will always do the same thing
for every specific input. Thus, programs can not have "Free Will", so
you are again just hypothesizing your Fairy Dust Powered Magical
Unicorns using their Magic Wands to get the answer.

Again, your problem is that you just don't understand how complicated
and immense some things are, because your mind is too small.