On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>
> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
> different meaning thus is a different question.
>
> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
> context of who is asked.
>
> As a concrete example the question:
> "Are you a little girl?"
> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>
> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>

Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.

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

On 12/27/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>
>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>
>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>> context of who is asked.
>>
>> As a concrete example the question:
>> "Are you a little girl?"
>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>
>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>
> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>

NO, what you said proves that your "logic system" doesn't understand
what "self-contradiction" or what a "Program" is.

Remember, to even ask the question, the PROGRAM D, must be defined,
which means we have an actual definite set of "instructions" that it
will perform on an input.

By the form of the proof, that means that the decider at is being
refuted mst have been defined, and it has a definite set of instructions
too.

Thus, we CAN ask, what does the program D, with input D do, as that
behavior was FIXED when we definie it, as it has a definite answer.

It also says that the answer that THAT program H will give, has been
fixed, as that program H when given this input D with input D, will
ALWAYS give what ever answer that sequence of instructions will give.

Thus, your claim of "self-contradictory" means that self-contradictory
includes case that actually HAVE an actual correct answer.

When you talk about "Which every answer H will give" shows you don't
understand what a program gives, as a program, once defined, will always
give the same answer to the same question, so it CAN'T give "Either
Answer", but only one. The design criteria allowed it to give either
answer, but once implemented, the answer wasw fixed.

If you back up to the reimplementation stage, and come up with a
DIFFERENT program (even in almost identical), that will generate a
DIFFERENT D if you want it to refer to this new H, as D includes a
complete copy of the decider it is refuting, as you can no longer treat
the new question as the same as the original one, so you don't actually
get a "contradiction"

Your H1 program, is a DIFFERENT program, even if most of the code is
identical, because its recursion test checks for a DIFFERENT value then
the copy of your program H used (and the copy of that H that D uses), so

You also prove that you don't understand Linguistics, as you don't
understand WHERE the Strawman Question you use gets its varying context.
THis shows that you are incapable of being able to attempt your goal of
trying to implement "Natural Lanuguage" in logic, as you don't
understand how Natural Language works.

Yes, you have shown your source code, and it proves your arguement to be
invalid.

D(D) Halts, and H(D,D) says it will be non-halting, thus H is just WRONG.

It does NOTHING to establish your varying context, becausse H1 is NOT H,
and thus the fact that H1 gets the right answer, doesn't prove anything,
except maybe that H's simulation couldn't have been "correct" by the
actual meaning of the word in the field.

You are just proving that you are the incompentent ignorant pathological
lying idiot.

On 12/27/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>
>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>
>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>> context of who is asked.
>>
>> As a concrete example the question:
>> "Are you a little girl?"
>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>
>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>
> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>

And just making that claim says you don't understand how "logic" works.

You don't "Prove" things by "Meaning of the Words" but by a sequence of
logical steps from known true premises with valid logical steps to
reaching a sound conclusion.

From the "Meaning of words" we might be able to establish inital Truth
Makers, but since your statements are proven to be incorrect, what that
says is that apparently your "language" is inconsistant, and has some
bad definitions in it.

One big one, as pointed out, is what a "program" is, and what a
"self-reference" is.

So, you have basically just admitted that NONE of you "Logic" is
actually applicable to anything relevent to logic.

It might work in an abstract philosophical argument, where ideas like
"truth" are made nebulous, but not in formal logic.

On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>
>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>
>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>> context of who is asked.
>>
>> As a concrete example the question:
>> "Are you a little girl?"
>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>
>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>
> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>

// The following is written in C
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }

Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns this makes the question:

Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.

The question: Are you a little girl?
Is a key example of how the context of who
is asked changes the meaning of a question.

When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.

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

On 12/27/23 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>
>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>
>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>> context of who is asked.
>>>
>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>>
>>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>
>>
>> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>>
>
>
> // The following is written in C
> //
> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
> 03
> 04 int D(ptr x)
> 05 {
> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 07   if (Halt_Status)
> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
> 09   return Halt_Status;
> 10 }
> 11
> 12 void main()
> 13 {
> 14   H(D,D);
> 15 }
>
> Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
> that H returns this makes the question:
>
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.
>
> The question: Are you a little girl?
> Is a key example of how the context of who
> is asked changes the meaning of a question.
>
> When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
> even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.
>

No, there IS a correct answer, just not the one that the given H returns.

Remeber, the input is a program built on a SPECIFIC program, and that
means a specific implementation of H, thus, per the definition, you
don't get to change H after you have built D.

So, there IS a correct answer that H was ALLOWED to return, thus the
actual question has a correct answer.

You just don't understand what a "Program" is, as you just talked about
"THE PROGRAM H" as multiple diffferent programs.

Note, part of your problem is you VIOLATED the procedure of the proof,
where D is given a COPY of the program H, it doesn't directly reference
the same copy of the code as is going to decide it, because that makes D
and H not independent programs, and thus NOT models of the Turing
Machines the proof is based on.

If you build D correctly, giving it a copy of the H you wish to declare
to give the right answer, you will find that that exact H gives the
wrong answer, but if you change it slightly (like you did to make H1)
but not change the D, so to be asking the exact same question, you find
that it gives the right answer, and thus we show that the question was
correctly answerable, and thus not "self-contradictory".

Your problem seems to be that rather than asking the question "Does the
Machine & Input described Halt when Run", you are asking the WRONG
question, what answer can this machine give to correctly answer the
question about the machine and input halting when run?"

This is like changing "what value of x makes 1 + x = 4?" into "what
value of 2 makes 1 + 2 = 4?". This is because H(D,D) was FIXED in value
when you defined H, so if it happens to give the wrong value, it isn't
the question that is wrong, but the machine.

On 12/27/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>
>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>
>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>> context of who is asked.
>>>
>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>>
>>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>
>>
>> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>>
>
>
> // The following is written in C
> //
> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
> 03
> 04 int D(ptr x)
> 05 {
> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 07   if (Halt_Status)
> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
> 09   return Halt_Status;
> 10 }
> 11
> 12 void main()
> 13 {
> 14   H(D,D);
> 15 }
>
> Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
> that H returns this makes the question:
>
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.
>
> The question: Are you a little girl?
> Is a key example of how the context of who
> is asked changes the meaning of a question.
>
> When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
> even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.
>

When the question:
Does D(D) halt?
is posed to H there is no correct answer.

When the exact same question is posed to H1 there
is a correct answer thus proving that it <is> a
different question depending on who it is posed to.

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

On 12/27/23 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>>
>>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>>
>>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>>> context of who is asked.
>>>>
>>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>>>
>>>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>>> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> // The following is written in C
>> //
>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>> 03
>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>> 05 {
>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>> 10 }
>> 11
>> 12 void main()
>> 13 {
>> 14   H(D,D);
>> 15 }
>>
>> Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>> that H returns this makes the question:
>>
>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.
>>
>> The question: Are you a little girl?
>> Is a key example of how the context of who
>> is asked changes the meaning of a question.
>>
>> When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
>> even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.
>>
>
> When the question:
> Does D(D) halt?
> is posed to H there is no correct answer.
>
> When the exact same question is posed to H1 there
> is a correct answer thus proving that it <is> a
> different question depending on who it is posed to.
>

But there IS a correct answer, for the H you have provided, the answer
is YES. (since the program H(D,D) that D was built on says non-halting).

That just isn't the answer that your H gives, so it is wrong.

What changes in D that makes its behavior when directly run change based
on who you ask?

That is like says "Is Jill a little Girl?" changes based on whether you
ask John or Mary?

You are just proving your incompitence with doing logic.

On 12/27/23 2:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/27/23 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>>>> context of who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>>>> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // The following is written in C
>>> //
>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>>> 03
>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>> 05 {
>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>> 10 }
>>> 11
>>> 12 void main()
>>> 13 {
>>> 14   H(D,D);
>>> 15 }
>>>
>>> Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>>> that H returns this makes the question:
>>>
>>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.
>>>
>>> The question: Are you a little girl?
>>> Is a key example of how the context of who
>>> is asked changes the meaning of a question.
>>>
>>> When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
>>> even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.
>>>
>>
>> When the question:
>> Does D(D) halt?
>> is posed to H there is no correct answer.
>>
>> When the exact same question is posed to H1 there
>> is a correct answer thus proving that it <is> a
>> different question depending on who it is posed to.
>>
>
> But there IS a correct answer, for the H you have provided, the answer
> is YES. (since the program H(D,D) that D was built on says non-halting).
>
> That just isn't the answer that your H gives, so it is wrong.
>
> What changes in D that makes its behavior when directly run change based
> on who you ask?
>
> That is like says "Is Jill a little Girl?" changes based on whether you
> ask John or Mary?
>
> You are just proving your incompitence with doing logic.

And if you say "but if H returned that answer things change", that just
shows your ignorance, becuase this H CAN'T return that answer, and if
you change the program, it is no longer the same program, even if given
the same name. Programs are NOT defined by their "name" but by their code.

So, a DIFFERENT H, (even if "Identical but ...") generates a DIFFERENT
D, so a DIFFERETNT question.

On 12/27/2023 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>>
>>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>>
>>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>>> context of who is asked.
>>>>
>>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>>>
>>>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>>> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> // The following is written in C
>> //
>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>> 03
>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>> 05 {
>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>> 10 }
>> 11
>> 12 void main()
>> 13 {
>> 14   H(D,D);
>> 15 }
>>
>> Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>> that H returns this makes the question:
>>
>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.
>>
>> The question: Are you a little girl?
>> Is a key example of how the context of who
>> is asked changes the meaning of a question.
>>
>> When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
>> even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.
>>
>
> When the question:
> Does D(D) halt?
> is posed to H there is no correct answer.
>
> When the exact same question is posed to H1 there
> is a correct answer thus proving that it <is> a
> different question depending on who it is posed to.
>

There only seems to be a correct answer for H when
one makes sure to hardly pay any attention all.

The question *IS NOT*
Does the directly executed D(D) halt?

The question *IS*
Does the directly executed D(D) halt
(when posed to H or posed to H1).

If the context of who as asked never changed the
meaning of the question then the question:
Are you a little girl?
would consistently have the same answer whether
it was posed to an old man or a little girl.

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

On 12/27/23 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>>>> context of who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>>>> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // The following is written in C
>>> //
>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>>> 03
>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>> 05 {
>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>> 10 }
>>> 11
>>> 12 void main()
>>> 13 {
>>> 14   H(D,D);
>>> 15 }
>>>
>>> Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>>> that H returns this makes the question:
>>>
>>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.
>>>
>>> The question: Are you a little girl?
>>> Is a key example of how the context of who
>>> is asked changes the meaning of a question.
>>>
>>> When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
>>> even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.
>>>
>>
>> When the question:
>> Does D(D) halt?
>> is posed to H there is no correct answer.
>>
>> When the exact same question is posed to H1 there
>> is a correct answer thus proving that it <is> a
>> different question depending on who it is posed to.
>>
>
> There only seems to be a correct answer for H when
> one makes sure to hardly pay any attention all.

No, it shows that YOU are the one not paying any attention and not
answering the errors pointed out, showing that you have no grounds to
refute them.

>
> The question *IS NOT*
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?

But it IS that question.

>
> The question *IS*
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt
> (when posed to H or posed to H1).

And how does the observe affect the behavior of the machine?

I guess you don't understand the DEFINITION of a Program / Machine?

>
> If the context of who as asked never changed the
> meaning of the question then the question:
> Are you a little girl?
> would consistently have the same answer whether
> it was posed to an old man or a little girl.
>

So, you don't see the difference between those two questions?

I guess your Natural Language processing is broken.

You are just proving yourself to be an idiot.

On 12/27/23 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2023 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>>>> context of who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
>>>> meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> // The following is written in C
>>> //
>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>>> 03
>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>> 05 {
>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>> 10 }
>>> 11
>>> 12 void main()
>>> 13 {
>>> 14   H(D,D);
>>> 15 }
>>>
>>> Because D is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>>> that H returns this makes the question:
>>>
>>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H.
>>>
>>> The question: Are you a little girl?
>>> Is a key example of how the context of who
>>> is asked changes the meaning of a question.
>>>
>>> When H is asked about D(D) no correct answer exists
>>> even though when H1 is asked about D(D) the answer is yes.
>>>
>>
>> When the question:
>> Does D(D) halt?
>> is posed to H there is no correct answer.
>>
>> When the exact same question is posed to H1 there
>> is a correct answer thus proving that it <is> a
>> different question depending on who it is posed to.
>>
>
> There only seems to be a correct answer for H when
> one makes sure to hardly pay any attention all.
>
> The question *IS NOT*
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>
> The question *IS*
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt
> (when posed to H or posed to H1).
>
> If the context of who as asked never changed the
> meaning of the question then the question:
> Are you a little girl?
> would consistently have the same answer whether
> it was posed to an old man or a little girl.
>
>
>

So, I guess this mean that you think the correct answer to who won the
2024 Presidential election isn't based on the ballot counts, but who you
ask and who they think actually won.

So you AGREE with the MAGA "lies" about the election was Rigged and
Trump actually won it.

On 1/2/2024 9:37 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/2/24 05:17, olcott wrote:
>> H and H1 are identical except that H1 is at a different machine address.
>
> Turing machines don't have machine addresses
>

They do have fixed integer state numbers, thus the same thing.

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

On 1/2/24 19:23, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 9:37 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/2/24 05:17, olcott wrote:
>>> H and H1 are identical except that H1 is at a different machine address.
>>
>> Turing machines don't have machine addresses
>>
>
> They do have fixed integer state numbers, thus the same thing.
>

Turing machines don't know their own state number

On 1/2/24 1:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 9:37 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/2/24 05:17, olcott wrote:
>>> H and H1 are identical except that H1 is at a different machine address.
>>
>> Turing machines don't have machine addresses
>>
>
> They do have fixed integer state numbers, thus the same thing.
>

No, states are not "integers" but arbitrary symbols, and have no "order"
like integers.

We can assign numbers to the states, but we can make any arbitrary
assignment, so H doesn't know which number was assigned in the copy of H
that was put in D.

You are just showing your utter ignorance of how these things work.

On 1/2/2024 2:29 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/2/24 19:23, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2024 9:37 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/2/24 05:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> H and H1 are identical except that H1 is at a different machine
>>>> address.
>>>
>>> Turing machines don't have machine addresses
>>>
>>
>> They do have fixed integer state numbers, thus the same thing.
>>
>
> Turing machines don't know their own state number

That conventional Turing machines don't typically know their
own state number is not at all the same as no TM can possibly
ever know its own state number.

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

On 1/4/24 23:22, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 2:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/2/24 19:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2024 9:37 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/24 05:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> H and H1 are identical except that H1 is at a different machine
>>>>> address.
>>>>
>>>> Turing machines don't have machine addresses
>>>>
>>>
>>> They do have fixed integer state numbers, thus the same thing.
>>>
>>
>> Turing machines don't know their own state number
>
> That conventional Turing machines don't typically know their
> own state number is not at all the same as no TM can possibly
> ever know its own state number.
>

If T and T1 are identical Turing machines except that T1 has different
state numbers, they always compute the same results.

On 1/4/24 5:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 2:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/2/24 19:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2024 9:37 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/24 05:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> H and H1 are identical except that H1 is at a different machine
>>>>> address.
>>>>
>>>> Turing machines don't have machine addresses
>>>>
>>>
>>> They do have fixed integer state numbers, thus the same thing.
>>>
>>
>> Turing machines don't know their own state number
>
> That conventional Turing machines don't typically know their
> own state number is not at all the same as no TM can possibly
> ever know its own state number.
>

So, you just don't understand about Turing Machines.

They know what State they are in.

They CAN'T know how that state has been encoded in a given
representation, because the encoding doesn't affect them.

You proved this ignorance years ago.