These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
science professor:

The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.

Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
the logically impossible.

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

On 10/20/23 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
> science professor:
>
> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>
> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
> the logically impossible.
>
>
>

So, your are trying to do an appeal to authority without specifying the
authority?

Also, the problem DOESN'T 'require' that the decider do that, it asks if
it is possible for a decider to figure out for all inputs (including
that one).

Since it is impossible to give that correct answer, the answer is that
there does not exists such a decider, and thus the Halting Funciton is
non-computable.

The Halting Question always does have a correct answer, so it is a valid
problem.

Either you are lying about your "PhD Computer Science Professor" or he
is just mistaken.

This is why "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. Something you
don't seem to understand.

On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
> science professor:
>
> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>
> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
> the logically impossible.

Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
always say what every other program D will do when D is
defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
definition of the halting problem does not limit what
computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
limits what is computable.

This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
to every other logical impossibility.

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

On 10/20/23 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>> science professor:
>>
>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>
>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>> the logically impossible.
>
> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
> always say what every other program D will do when D is
> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
> limits what is computable.
>
> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
> to every other logical impossibility.
>

Nope, Every instance of the Halting Problem has a ANSWER.

Note, Decider Problems are valid if there is a answer for every input.

Not being able to make a program to give it makes the problem
non-computable, not invald.

You just don't know the definition of things.

You seem to think that all problems need to have programable solutions,
which is a false premise.

Just like your premise that all truth must be provable.

These only hold for very simple systems, not the ones we normally use
(like ones that support the natural numbers).

On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>> science professor:
>>
>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>
>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>> the logically impossible.
>
> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
> always say what every other program D will do when D is
> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
> limits what is computable.
>
> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
> to every other logical impossibility.

The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
because it has an unsatisfiable specification.

This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
that make it an invalid problem definition.

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

On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>> science professor:
>>>
>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>> the logically impossible.
>>
>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>> limits what is computable.
>>
>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>> to every other logical impossibility.
>
> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>
> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>
>

The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
because it has an unsatisfiable specification.

Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
that makes it an invalid problem definition.

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

On 10/20/23 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>> science professor:
>>>
>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>> the logically impossible.
>>
>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>> limits what is computable.
>>
>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>> to every other logical impossibility.
>
> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>
> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>
>

So, you don't understand what the halting problem question is, because
you are too ignorant.

THe Halting Problem is the determine if the machine represented by the
input will halt or not.

Since H(D,D) will return 0 (as that is the answer you are claiming it is
correctly returning) then we know from the definition of the program in
the proof, that D(D) Halts, and thus the CORRECT ANSWER to this halting
problem is Halting.

The fact that H gave the other answer, just says that H was wrong.

Note, your "altered" question, isn't the actual question of the Halting
Problem, but a question you need to solve to design an H that wants to
be a Halt Decider. The fact that THIS problem doesn't have a solution
just shows that it is impossible to make a decider that answers the
queston, and thus the question is non-computable.

Something you don't seem to understand, as it seems that all problems
need to be computable, just like you think all truth must be provable.

This is a root of much of your error.

And again, repeating your claims without answering the errors pointed
out is just an admission that you accept that you logic is flawed and
are just working on disinformation. Making you a Hypocrite.

On 10/20/23 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>> science professor:
>>>>
>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>> limits what is computable.
>>>
>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>
>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>
>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>
>>
>
> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>
> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>
>

Your just repeating yourself, because you are just too stupid to
actually even TRY to argue about the points.

On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>> science professor:
>>>>
>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>> limits what is computable.
>>>
>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>
>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>
>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>
>>
>
> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>
> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
> that makes it an invalid problem definition.

The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
result.

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

On 10/20/23 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>
>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>
>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>
>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>
>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>
>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>
> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
> result.
>

So, you are admitting you don't understand how it works!

Your problem is you think you know more than you do and that is the most
dangerous form of ignorance.

IT makes you TOTALLY stupid.

There is a logical answer to the RIGHT question, so the problem is not a
"logical impossibility".

It is undecidable, as you can't compute that answer within the
limitations of computability.

You just feel a need to change the question to something that it isn't
to try to justify your position.

That make you a LIAR, because you KNOW you have changed the question,
even if you think it is to something "equivalent".

On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>
>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>
>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>
>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>
>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>
>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>
> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
> result.
>

People the learn these things by rote might not be able
to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.

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

On 10/20/23 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>
>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>
>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>
>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>
>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>
>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>> result.
>>
>
> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>

You say that, but you can't actually DEFINE what you mean in a way that
matches the defined logic system.

The problem is you don't actually seem to know what the words mean and
are just guessing (wrongly) what they mean.

Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it, (even if
we can't get a program to provide those answers)

Problems are decidable, if we CAN write a program to compute it for all
input.

Thus, your claims that "Undeciabiliy" is "Unsoud" is just a LIE, based
on a fatal misunderstanding of the definitions, because you are just too
stupid.

In particuar for the Halting Problem, Once you define your program H, as
a specific program with a given set of code, its behavior when given any
input is defined. IF we build the program D per the Linz proof, i.e. it
uses a copy of H to evalute what it will do for H(D,D), and then does
the opposite. We can show that if H(D,D) happens to return 0, then we
can show that D(D) will halt, and thus the CORRECT answer to the halting
problem that H(D,D) is asking is that the input is Halting, but H gave
the non-halting answer, so is wrong.

The answer exists, so the question isn't invalid.

THe claimed decider gave the wrong answer, so it is wrong.

Since we can do to to ANY possible claimed decider, we can show that it
is impossible to create such a decider, and thus the problem is
non-computable or undecidable.

We know that many problems are valid but undecidable, because there is
an order of infinity more problems than possible solutions. I.E probems
are uncountable, but solutions are just countable.

From what I have seen, "Uncountable" doesn't fit in your head, because
your mind can't handle the concepts. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>
>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>
>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>
>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>
>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>
>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>> result.
>>
>
> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>

"Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?

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

On 10/21/23 7:08 AM, olcott wrote:

>
> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>

So, we are back to the fact that you don't understand the terminology.

The PROBLEM that we are asking H to solve is to determine if it machine
decribed by its input, will Halt in finite time or not.

Since H(D,D) returns 0 (indicating Non-Halting), as your stipulation of
what is its "correct" answer, so that must BE its answer. We know from
the defintion of D, that D(D) will halt, because it will get that answer
from its copy of H.

That means that the correct ANSWER, is Halting.

The answer exists, so the PROBLEM is not illogical.

The fact that we can't create a program to do that, means the question
is not COMPUTABLE.

Note, the question about trying to write an H to do this is a question
of existance, DOES such a program exist, and that question has an
answer, and the answer is NO.

Your logic seems to want to say that any "problem" that can't be
computed is just illogical. No, the problems exist and are logical, it
just isn't computable.

This just goes back to your same old problem that you seem to want to
disallow things things from being true unless we have the ability to
know them, which leads your logic into the bottleneck of it can't ask
questions until it knows they can be answered.

This leads to an incredibly weak logic system.

Your whole argument ends up being based on lies based on altering
definitions to ones that are broken. You need to OVER simpify things so
you can understand them, but in doing so you change their nature.

YOU ARE JUST TO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE MATERIAL, AND DON'T UNDERSTAND
THAT.

On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>
>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>
>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>> result.
>>>
>>
>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>
>
> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?

All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
problem definition requires the logically impossible.

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

On 10/21/23 8:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>
>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>>> result.
>>>>
>>>
>>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>>
>>
>> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
>> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
>> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>
> All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
> problem definition requires the logically impossible.
>
>

Nope. I explained it, but you don't understand it.

You just don't seem to understand that you can't just change the problem
to what you want, appparently because you are just a pathological lair
that just doesn't understand what Truth actually means.

Since you clearly don't understand what "undecidable", "problem" or
"logical" means, you are just proving your stupidity.

That ACTUAL Problem is answering if a given input represents a Halting
Computation or not. This answer is called the Halting Function

The ANSWER exist, and has a value for all possible input machines.

The "pathological" example, starts with assuming the existance of an
arbitrary, but specific, program claimed to be a Halt Decider.

As it is a specific program, its answers to all inputs given to it are
fixed, but because it is claimed to be a Halt Decider, those answers are
CLAIMED to be correct.

From the specific decider, it has been shown that we can create a
specific input, which you are calling D.

The question now is, does D(D) Halt or not.

Since H is a specific program, H(D,D) will have a specific answer, which
you claim is correct, and is non-halting.

Given that stipulation that H(D,D) returns non-halting, we can see by
the construction of D, that D(D) will Halt.

Thus, the correct answer to this problem is HALTING, and that answer
exists, so their is no logical impossiblity to the answer.

It just is a fact, that H gave the wrong answer, so H can NOT be a
"Correct Halt Decider" as that requires that it get ALL possible inputs
correctly but it doesn't

The fact that we can do this for any arbitrary decider, and show that no
matter which of the finite number of possible responses it gives to this
input, it is wrong, shows us that it is impossible to make a decider
that gets it right, and thus the Halting Function is a non-computable
function, and is thus "undecidable" (Which just means we can't write a
program that always gives the correct answer in finite time).

You are just stuck because you think the domain of problems must be the
computable set, not the set of all possible functions.

This is basically the same error when the Greeks tried to make the
domain of number be just the rationals, and had problems with number
like the square root of 2.

That is exactly your problem, you can't conceive of the fact that things
can exist outside your limited imagination. Things like that you can't
define a function that creates a non-computable mapping.

You are just wrong here. Yes, you can define systems with those
limitations, but the resulting systems are too weak to do the work we
ask of them. Your system will even need to give up the natural numbers,
as Godel shows that the basic properties of them allow us to create
unprovable statements. You can't do as you claim, have those rules, and
the power needed too. You just don't understand the basics of logic well
enough to demonstrate that to you, because you believe unquestionly,
your own lies.

On 10/21/2023 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>
>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>>> result.
>>>>
>>>
>>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>>
>>
>> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
>> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
>> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>
> All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
> problem definition requires the logically impossible.

That the halting problem cannot be solved because solving
it is proven to be a logical impossibility proves that the
problem definition is invalid.

The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general
algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all
possible program–input pairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

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

On 10/21/23 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>>>> result.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>>>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
>>> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
>>> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>>
>> All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
>> problem definition requires the logically impossible.
>
> That the halting problem cannot be solved because solving
> it is proven to be a logical impossibility proves that the
> problem definition is invalid.
>
> The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general
> algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all
> possible program–input pairs.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>

Right. It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to create a PROGRAM to solve it.

That doesn't make the Halting Question illogical.

The QUESTION asked, is does the machine represented by the input halt.

THAT has an answer.

Thus, the problem is not "Invalid", as an invalid problem would be to
ask a program to generate an answer that doesn't exist.

The answer exists, but can not be computed by a program.

Just like the square root of two is a number that exists, even though it
isn't a rational number.

You are stuck in the same erroneous mind set of the ancient Greeks.

SO, it seems that you think the universe of possible problems we might
want to solve is limited by the universe of programs that might be able
to solve them.

Think of it this way, if the universal set of valid problems were
problems that were computable, how could we decide if a problem was valid?

Only by knowing the answer of how to compute it, otherwise the question
might just turn out to be invalid, because it turns out that the actual
problem is non-computable.

A logic system that can't define what problems are valid without knowing
the answer to them is a very weak logical system.

In normal logic, we can pose quesitons like: "Does there exist a highest
pair of twin primes?"

In your logic system, you don't know if that is a valid question to ask
or not, becuase it may be a non-provable/non-computable statement.

A problem doesn't suddenly become "invalid" just because you find out
that there isn't an anwser to it. It just so happens that normal logic
considers the answer "Thats not computable" to be a valid answer for a
computation problem.

Just like we can say that there isn't a ratio of natural numbers that
represents the square root of 2, because it is irrational.

You are missing that these problems include the possibility of failure
to acheive the goal of knowing the answer.

On 10/21/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>>>> result.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>>>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
>>> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
>>> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>>
>> All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
>> problem definition requires the logically impossible.
>
> That the halting problem cannot be solved because solving
> it is proven to be a logical impossibility proves that the
> problem definition is invalid.
>
> The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general
> algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all
> possible program–input pairs.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>

The new philosophical insight that I and a PhD computer science
professor share that I came up with in 2004 resulted in a dialogue
that enabled me to boil our shared idea down to its sound bite version:

*All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their*
*problem definition requires the logically impossible*

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

On 10/21/23 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>>>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>>>>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
>>>> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
>>>> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>>>
>>> All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
>>> problem definition requires the logically impossible.
>>
>> That the halting problem cannot be solved because solving
>> it is proven to be a logical impossibility proves that the
>> problem definition is invalid.
>>
>> The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general
>> algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all
>> possible program–input pairs.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>
> The new philosophical insight that I and a PhD computer science
> professor share that I came up with in 2004 resulted in a dialogue
> that enabled me to boil our shared idea down to its sound bite version:
>
> *All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their*
> *problem definition requires the logically impossible*
>
>

Nope, just shows that you don't understand a thing you are talking about.

THe Halting Problem is NOT "Invalid", as it ask a ligitimate
characteristic of the machine described by the input.

And one that has an answer.

You just are proving you don't understand the basics of theory.

And your repeated instance on this, ignoring the errors pointed out just
shows that it appears you are ignorant pathological liar.

You seem incapable of actually understanding what truth means.

You are just an idiot, and are shouting the proof of that "from the roof
tops".

Sorry, your just an foolish idiot.

On 10/21/2023 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>>>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>>>>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
>>>> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
>>>> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>>>
>>> All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
>>> problem definition requires the logically impossible.
>>
>> That the halting problem cannot be solved because solving
>> it is proven to be a logical impossibility proves that the
>> problem definition is invalid.
>>
>> The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general
>> algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all
>> possible program–input pairs.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>
> The new philosophical insight that I and a PhD computer science
> professor share that I came up with in 2004 resulted in a dialogue
> that enabled me to boil our shared idea down to its sound bite version:
>

*All undecidable decision problems*
*All undecidable decision problems*
*All undecidable decision problems*
*All undecidable decision problems*
*All undecidable decision problems*

*are simply invalid because their problem*
*definition requires the logically impossible*

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

On 10/21/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2023 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>>>>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>>>>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>>>>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>>>>>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>>>>>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>>>>>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>>>>>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>>>>>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not has an ANSWER
>>>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>>>> that make it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem does not [have] an ANSWER
>>>>>>>> because it has an unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since satisfaction is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>>> that makes it an invalid problem definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is unsound because the
>>>>>>> satisfying the decision problem requires a logical impossible
>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People the learn these things by rote might not be able
>>>>>> to appreciate these philosophical foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Problems are logically possible, if there exists ANSWERS to it"
>>>>> What H can correctly say what the direct execution of any D will
>>>>> do when some D does the opposite of whatever H says?
>>>>
>>>> All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their
>>>> problem definition requires the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> That the halting problem cannot be solved because solving
>>> it is proven to be a logical impossibility proves that the
>>> problem definition is invalid.
>>>
>>> The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general
>>> algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all
>>> possible program–input pairs.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>
>>
>> The new philosophical insight that I and a PhD computer science
>> professor share that I came up with in 2004 resulted in a dialogue
>> that enabled me to boil our shared idea down to its sound bite version:
>>
>
> *All undecidable decision problems*
> *All undecidable decision problems*
> *All undecidable decision problems*
> *All undecidable decision problems*
> *All undecidable decision problems*
>
> *are simply invalid because their problem*
> *definition requires the logically impossible*
>
>

Nope. And just repeating your false claims like a two year old doesn't
make it so.

The answer the halting problem ask to be generated exists, so the
question on the behavior of the input is not a invalid problem.

The fact that you can't write a program to do it. make it a VALID, but
undecidable problem.

You are just proving that you are ignorant of everything you talk about,
and have no understanding of how to make a logical arguement.

You are admitting you have no real proof of your claims by not even
trying to answer the rebutalls.

YOU ARE ADMITTING TO YOUR STUPIDITY.

On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>> science professor:
>>
>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>
>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>> the logically impossible.
>
> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
> always say what every other program D will do when D is
> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
> limits what is computable.
>
> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
> to every other logical impossibility.

The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
unsatisfiable thus invalid.

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

On 10/21/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>> science professor:
>>>
>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>> the logically impossible.
>>
>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>> limits what is computable.
>>
>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>> to every other logical impossibility.
>
> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>

Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the words.

Halting Function is fully defined, so is a valid specification.

The fact that the function turns out to be non-computable, just means
you can't make an actual Halt Decider, not that the specification is
invalid.

Your definitions are the ones that are invalid, as you can't tell IF a
given specification is valid until you either prove the function is
actually computable or not.

That makes your logic system basicaly worthless.

My guess is you are not going to respond to this message, just proving
that you don't actually have any real response, but are just repeating
your same incorrect reasoning, showing your stupidity.

On 10/21/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>> science professor:
>>>
>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>> the logically impossible.
>>
>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>> limits what is computable.
>>
>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>> to every other logical impossibility.
>
> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>

That fact that the program specification for a halt decider
is unsatisfiable proves that it is the same as a question
that has been defined to not possibly have any correct answer.

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