On 10/16/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 5:33 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 5:47:43 AM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 2:41 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 10:19:00 PM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> ..[cut]
>>>>> People stuck in rebuttal mode may try to claim that an infinite set
>>>>> of program/input pairs have zero elements that are programs, yet this
>>>>> is very obviously quite foolish.
>>>>
>>>> It is you stuck in rebuttal mode.
>>> I am making statements
>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack is self-contradictory and that
>>> is the reason why both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> No computer program H can correctly say what another computer
>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>
>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory questions*
>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a mandatory
>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>> Self-contradictory questions thus are incorrect in the same way that
>>> self-contradictory statements are incorrect.
>> Self-contradictory statements are self-contradictory statements.
>> 'Incorrect' depends on correct. So, what is the correct answer before
>> the answer is unknown?
>
> Any question that lacks a correct answer because there is something
> wrong with the question is an incorrect question.
>
> A self-contradictory question is a yes/no question that lacks
> a correct answer because it contradicts both yes and no.
>

Except that the Halting problem question, namely, does the machine
described by the input Halt, HAS a correct answer, H just doesn't give it.

Your claiming a different question as being "equivalent" just shows you
are a liar or an idiot, as you KNOW they have different results in this
case, so they can't actually be equivalent.

On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified
>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this
>>>>>>>> self-
>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked]
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct Boolean
>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an
>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not mean
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from the
>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>>>>> are the
>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>
>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>
>>
>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input D
>> where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>
>
> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>
> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
> by this decider because this input to this pair
> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> for this decider.
>
> The some other decider can answer some other question
> is no rebuttal at all.
>
> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns.

Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.

That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.

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

On 10/16/23 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified
>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this
>>>>>>>>> self-
>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked]
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
>>> D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>
>>
>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>
>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>> for this decider.
>>
>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>
>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>
> Does machine D halt on input D?

Yes.

> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns

Why is it "self-contradictory?" What "Self" did it contradict.

D contradics H, not "itself".

> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>
> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
> proves that these are two different questions.
>

Nope.

Since D(D) Halts ALWAYS the answer to, "does it halt?", is YES.

ALWAYS.

Even for H

Remember, H was defined too, so H does what H always did. and is wrong.

Nothong "Self-Contradictory", just WRONG, as are you.

You are just proving yourself to be a lying idiot.

On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified
>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this
>>>>>>>>> self-
>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked]
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
>>> D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>
>>
>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>
>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>> for this decider.
>>
>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>
>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>
> Does machine D halt on input D?
> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>
> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
> proves that these are two different questions.
>

That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
self-contradictory for this decider.

When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
<is> self-contradictory in the same way that
"This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.

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

On 10/16/23 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified
>>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
>>>> D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>
>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>> for this decider.
>>>
>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>
>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>
>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>
>
> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
> self-contradictory for this decider.
>
> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>

On 10/16/23 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

>
> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
> self-contradictory for this decider.
>
> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>

H(D,D) can only return 1 value, becuase of how it is programed.

It is a category error to talk about H returning anything other than
what it is programmed to do.

You clearly don't understand how programs work

You don't even seem to know what "Self" means.

You don't understand how logic works.

You are just continuing to prove that you are nothing but a hypocritical
lying idiot.

You claim to want to fight disinformation, but you spread it yourself.

You going down in history as a laughing stock.

On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified
>>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
>>>> D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>
>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>> for this decider.
>>>
>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>
>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>
>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>
>
> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
> self-contradictory for this decider.
>
> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>

On 10/18/23 12:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
>>>>>>>>>>> simplified it for
>>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach
>>>>>>>>>>> a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
>>>>>>>>>>> original meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
>>>>> input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that
>>>>> H returns
>>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>>
>>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>
>>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>>
>>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>>
>>
>> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
>> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
>> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
>> self-contradictory for this decider.
>>
>> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
>> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
>> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>>
>
> I told the computer science professor about
> the loophole you found in his work.
>

On 10/17/2023 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
>>>>>>>>>>> simplified it for
>>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach
>>>>>>>>>>> a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
>>>>>>>>>>> original meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
>>>>> input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that
>>>>> H returns
>>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>>
>>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>
>>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>>
>>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>>
>>
>> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
>> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
>> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
>> self-contradictory for this decider.
>>
>> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
>> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
>> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>>
>
> I told the computer science professor about
> the loophole you found in his work.
>

On 10/18/23 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2023 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>> simplified it for
>>>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not true.” is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value
>>>>>>>>>>>> exists for this
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> original meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
>>>>>> input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value
>>>>>> that H returns
>>>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>>>
>>>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>
>>>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>>>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>>>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>>>
>>>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>>>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
>>> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
>>> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>>> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
>>> self-contradictory for this decider.
>>>
>>> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
>>> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
>>> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>>>
>>
>> I told the computer science professor about
>> the loophole you found in his work.
>>
>
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question when posed
> to Jack.
>