On 1/6/2024 3:02 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/6/24 21:45, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 19:31, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> "Does the barber shave himself?" has a correct answer: it's one of
>>> "yes" or "no".
>>>
>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>> himself?" has no correct answer.
>>
>> The context of the first question is the second question.
>>
>
> Then it is a correct question with incorrect context.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H is a program. D(D) halts or not. The only wrong thing is the
>>>>> statement "H solves the halting problem." It's a false statement.
>>>>> And I know it's false even if I don't know which program H is yet.
>>>>> It's always false for every program.
>>>>
>>>> When we apply the ZFC solution to Russell's Paradox to
>>>> its isomorphic HP counter-example it requires rejecting
>>>> the pathological input as invalid.
>>>>
>>>> To be consistent in our reasoning we cannot say that
>>>> that RP has been solved by ZFC and H/D cannot be solved
>>>> by H rejecting D.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right. We reject the halting decider as invalid. We have proved there
>>> is no halting decider,
>>
>> There is no halt decider that works correctly on incorrect inputs.
>>
>
> There is no an incorrect input to a halt decider, except for input which
> isn't a Turing machine. If a program has incorrect input, that program
> isn't a halt decider.

That <is> the received view, yet the received view never bothered
to think these things all-the-way through. Only when this received view
understands that the HP counter-example is isomorphic to determining
whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.

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

On 1/6/2024 6:22 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/7/24 01:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 21:54, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:14 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/24 20:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 12:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not a question is incorrect is always determined by
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of talking about incorrect questions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proving that the whole notion of undecidability is anchored in a
>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you need to actually show that the question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect questions are defined as any question that cannot possibly
>>>>>> have a correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This remains the case even when the question is only incorrect when
>>>>>> posed to a specific entity within the discourse context, thus Jack's
>>>>>> question posed to Jack and input D to H <are> incorrect questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That logicians and computer scientists are ignorant of these details
>>>>>> it no excuse for ignoring them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct question: "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect question: "Given that H is a correct decider for the
>>>>> halting problem, does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will use your approach to this:
>>>> Encode the context directly in the question.
>>>>
>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>>> himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> Thus the question is not "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>
>>>> The question (with full context added) is:
>>>>
>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>
>> I used the exact same method that you used on the barber paradox by
>> encoding the full context of the question directly in the question.
>> *Please do not be dishonest*
>>
>
> It's still the wrong question.
>

I proved otherwise by your own example, why lie?

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

On 1/7/24 02:12, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 6:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 01:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 21:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:14 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/24 20:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 12:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not a question is incorrect is always determined
>>>>>>>>>>> by ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of talking about incorrect questions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Proving that the whole notion of undecidability is anchored in a
>>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you need to actually show that the question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect questions are defined as any question that cannot possibly
>>>>>>> have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This remains the case even when the question is only incorrect when
>>>>>>> posed to a specific entity within the discourse context, thus Jack's
>>>>>>> question posed to Jack and input D to H <are> incorrect questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That logicians and computer scientists are ignorant of these details
>>>>>>> it no excuse for ignoring them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct question: "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect question: "Given that H is a correct decider for the
>>>>>> halting problem, does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will use your approach to this:
>>>>> Encode the context directly in the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>> shave himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus the question is not "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>
>>>>> The question (with full context added) is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>>
>>> I used the exact same method that you used on the barber paradox by
>>> encoding the full context of the question directly in the question.
>>> *Please do not be dishonest*
>>>
>>
>> It's still the wrong question.
>>
>
> I proved otherwise by your own example, why lie?
>
You didn't prove anything. You used the wrong question.

On 1/7/24 02:10, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 3:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 21:45, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 19:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Does the barber shave himself?" has a correct answer: it's one of
>>>> "yes" or "no".
>>>>
>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>>> himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>
>>> The context of the first question is the second question.
>>>
>>
>> Then it is a correct question with incorrect context.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is a program. D(D) halts or not. The only wrong thing is the
>>>>>> statement "H solves the halting problem." It's a false statement.
>>>>>> And I know it's false even if I don't know which program H is yet.
>>>>>> It's always false for every program.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we apply the ZFC solution to Russell's Paradox to
>>>>> its isomorphic HP counter-example it requires rejecting
>>>>> the pathological input as invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be consistent in our reasoning we cannot say that
>>>>> that RP has been solved by ZFC and H/D cannot be solved
>>>>> by H rejecting D.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right. We reject the halting decider as invalid. We have proved
>>>> there is no halting decider,
>>>
>>> There is no halt decider that works correctly on incorrect inputs.
>>>
>>
>> There is no an incorrect input to a halt decider, except for input
>> which isn't a Turing machine. If a program has incorrect input, that
>> program isn't a halt decider.
>
> That <is> the received view, yet the received view never bothered
> to think these things all-the-way through. Only when this received view
> understands that the HP counter-example is isomorphic to determining
> whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
>

A halt decider takes any program as input, or any program and its
initial tape contents (it doesn't matter which definition is used). Are
you trying to redefine the word "program"?

On 1/7/24 01:45, olcott wrote:
>
> The ZFC axiom schema of specification forbids the
> creation of self-referential sets.
>

Yes, but you missed the forest for the trees. ZFC says that
self-referential sets do not exist. Olcott machines say that
self-referential programs do not exist. I don't understand what you
think is a self-referential program, but we know how to construct one by
following the steps of Linz (you said this makes a self-referential
program). So what happens when we follow the steps? Is the result not a
program?

On 1/7/24 01:28, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 3:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 21:32, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> In that case embedded_H can recognize the its input is a copy of its
>>> own TM specification.
>>>
>>
>> The specification of embedded_H can be modified without altering the
>> semantics. It will give the same answer as before, but it will no
>> longer be a copy.
>
> There are several ways to recognize pathological self-reference.
> I presenting the simple one that has fully operational code.
> I could not encode the other one because the x86 emulator could
> not handle it. None-the-less it still does work on the Peter Linz Proof.
>
Your simple one isn't isomorphic to a Turing machine.

On 1/7/24 01:26, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 2:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 21:42, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 1:52 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 19:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it <is> targeted it must reject the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as it rejects self-contradictory input a targeted
>>>>> simulator remains correct.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> correct except for self-contradictory inputs, for which it is incorrect
>>>
>>> So you don't comprehend that invalid inputs are to be rejected?
>>> Is the Liar Paradox (true or false)? <is> an incorrect question.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Does the blood moon howl?" is not an invalid input.
>
> People only change the subject using a strawman error when they
> are not honest enough to acknowledge that I made my point.
>
You made no point.

"Is the Liar Paradox?" is a syntax error, like a Turing machine with no
states.

"Does the blood moon howl?" is correct syntax, but meaningless. If the
task is to parse the English language, it must be successful, because it
is valid English syntax.

On 1/7/24 01:24, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 21:48, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 2:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether or not a question is incorrect is always determined by ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the purpose of talking about incorrect questions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Proving that the whole notion of undecidability is anchored in a
>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>
>>>> What mistake?
>>>
>>> Undecidability is anchored in the fact that incorrect questions
>>> have no correct answer. The correct approach is to reject these
>>> incorrect questions and it is a mistake to not reject them.
>>>
>>
>> Undecidability is actually the nonexistence of a Turing machine which
>> always gives the correct answer to a certain question. That is the
>> definition.
>
> When we screen out every question that cannot possibly have a
> correct true/false return value as invalid input then undecidability
> cannot possibly exist because these are the undecidable inputs.
>
The halting problem has a correct true/false return value

On 1/6/2024 7:19 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/7/24 02:12, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 6:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/7/24 01:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/24 21:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:14 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 20:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 12:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not a question is incorrect is always determined
>>>>>>>>>>>> by ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of talking about incorrect questions?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proving that the whole notion of undecidability is anchored in a
>>>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you need to actually show that the question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions are defined as any question that cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>> have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This remains the case even when the question is only incorrect when
>>>>>>>> posed to a specific entity within the discourse context, thus
>>>>>>>> Jack's
>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack and input D to H <are> incorrect questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That logicians and computer scientists are ignorant of these
>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>> it no excuse for ignoring them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct question: "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect question: "Given that H is a correct decider for the
>>>>>>> halting problem, does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will use your approach to this:
>>>>>> Encode the context directly in the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>>> shave himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus the question is not "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question (with full context added) is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>>>
>>>> I used the exact same method that you used on the barber paradox by
>>>> encoding the full context of the question directly in the question.
>>>> *Please do not be dishonest*
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's still the wrong question.
>>>
>>
>> I proved otherwise by your own example, why lie?
>>
> You didn't prove anything. You used the wrong question.

In other words you are saying:
Does the barber shave himself? <is> the impossible question
without the context details.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/6/2024 7:19 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/7/24 02:10, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 3:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 21:45, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/24 19:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Does the barber shave himself?" has a correct answer: it's one of
>>>>> "yes" or "no".
>>>>>
>>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>> shave himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> The context of the first question is the second question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then it is a correct question with incorrect context.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is a program. D(D) halts or not. The only wrong thing is the
>>>>>>> statement "H solves the halting problem." It's a false statement.
>>>>>>> And I know it's false even if I don't know which program H is
>>>>>>> yet. It's always false for every program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we apply the ZFC solution to Russell's Paradox to
>>>>>> its isomorphic HP counter-example it requires rejecting
>>>>>> the pathological input as invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be consistent in our reasoning we cannot say that
>>>>>> that RP has been solved by ZFC and H/D cannot be solved
>>>>>> by H rejecting D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. We reject the halting decider as invalid. We have proved
>>>>> there is no halting decider,
>>>>
>>>> There is no halt decider that works correctly on incorrect inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no an incorrect input to a halt decider, except for input
>>> which isn't a Turing machine. If a program has incorrect input, that
>>> program isn't a halt decider.
>>
>> That <is> the received view, yet the received view never bothered
>> to think these things all-the-way through. Only when this received view
>> understands that the HP counter-example is isomorphic to determining
>> whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
>>
>
> A halt decider takes any program as input, or any program and its
> initial tape contents (it doesn't matter which definition is used). Are
> you trying to redefine the word "program"?

I have been doing primary research on pathological self-reference
for twenty years. It <is> the case that pathological self-reference
<is> an error that must be rejected. The Liar Paradox <is not> a
truth-bearer. Is <is> the case that all expressions that are isomorphic
to the Liar Paradox <are> erroneous.

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

On 1/6/2024 7:21 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/7/24 01:45, olcott wrote:
> >
>> The ZFC axiom schema of specification forbids the
>> creation of self-referential sets.
>>
>
> Yes, but you missed the forest for the trees. ZFC says that
> self-referential sets do not exist.

Not quite. ZFC prevents self-referential sets from coming into
existence. Pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) must be
rejected as erroneous.

> Olcott machines say that
> self-referential programs do not exist. I don't understand what you
> think is a self-referential program, but we know how to construct one by
> following the steps of Linz (you said this makes a self-referential
> program). So what happens when we follow the steps? Is the result not a
> program?

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

On 1/6/2024 7:21 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/7/24 01:28, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 3:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 21:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In that case embedded_H can recognize the its input is a copy of its
>>>> own TM specification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The specification of embedded_H can be modified without altering the
>>> semantics. It will give the same answer as before, but it will no
>>> longer be a copy.
>>
>> There are several ways to recognize pathological self-reference.
>> I presenting the simple one that has fully operational code.
>> I could not encode the other one because the x86 emulator could
>> not handle it. None-the-less it still does work on the Peter Linz Proof.
>>
> Your simple one isn't isomorphic to a Turing machine.

It demonstrates a basic principle COMPLETELY without the gaps
in reasoning that must be included in every HP proof.

I show how the exact same basic principle <is> applied to the
Peter Linz proof.

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

On 1/6/2024 7:22 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/7/24 01:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 2:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 21:42, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:52 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/24 19:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it <is> targeted it must reject the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as it rejects self-contradictory input a targeted
>>>>>> simulator remains correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> correct except for self-contradictory inputs, for which it is
>>>>> incorrect
>>>>
>>>> So you don't comprehend that invalid inputs are to be rejected?
>>>> Is the Liar Paradox (true or false)? <is> an incorrect question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Does the blood moon howl?" is not an invalid input.
>>
>> People only change the subject using a strawman error when they
>> are not honest enough to acknowledge that I made my point.
>>
> You made no point.
>
> "Is the Liar Paradox?" is a syntax error, like a Turing machine with no
> states.
>

The evaluation of the Liar Paradox requires an infinite cycle
in its directed graph. Prolog recognizes this and rejects it.

> "Does the blood moon howl?" is correct syntax, but meaningless. If the
> task is to parse the English language, it must be successful, because it
> is valid English syntax.

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

On 1/6/2024 7:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/7/24 01:24, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 21:48, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whether or not a question is incorrect is always determined by ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the purpose of talking about incorrect questions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proving that the whole notion of undecidability is anchored in a
>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What mistake?
>>>>
>>>> Undecidability is anchored in the fact that incorrect questions
>>>> have no correct answer. The correct approach is to reject these
>>>> incorrect questions and it is a mistake to not reject them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Undecidability is actually the nonexistence of a Turing machine which
>>> always gives the correct answer to a certain question. That is the
>>> definition.
>>
>> When we screen out every question that cannot possibly have a
>> correct true/false return value as invalid input then undecidability
>> cannot possibly exist because these are the undecidable inputs.
>>
> The halting problem has a correct true/false return value

*Not when the full context of the question is considered*
"What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?"

*Your paraphrase of Russell's Paradox was very helpful*
Now there is no need to explain the discourse analysis
of linguistics context of who is asked a question we
can simply write out the whole question including its
context.

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

On 1/7/24 04:20, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 7:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 01:24, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 21:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether or not a question is incorrect is always determined by ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of talking about incorrect questions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proving that the whole notion of undecidability is anchored in a
>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What mistake?
>>>>>
>>>>> Undecidability is anchored in the fact that incorrect questions
>>>>> have no correct answer. The correct approach is to reject these
>>>>> incorrect questions and it is a mistake to not reject them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Undecidability is actually the nonexistence of a Turing machine
>>>> which always gives the correct answer to a certain question. That is
>>>> the definition.
>>>
>>> When we screen out every question that cannot possibly have a
>>> correct true/false return value as invalid input then undecidability
>>> cannot possibly exist because these are the undecidable inputs.
>>>
>> The halting problem has a correct true/false return value
>
> *Not when the full context of the question is considered*
> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined
>  to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>
That isn't the halting problem, that's a different problem.

The halting problem asks whether D halts.

On 1/7/24 03:49, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 7:19 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 02:12, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 6:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/24 01:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/24 21:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 2:14 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 20:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 12:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not a question is incorrect is always determined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of talking about incorrect questions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proving that the whole notion of undecidability is anchored in a
>>>>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to actually show that the question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect questions are defined as any question that cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>> have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This remains the case even when the question is only incorrect
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> posed to a specific entity within the discourse context, thus
>>>>>>>>> Jack's
>>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack and input D to H <are> incorrect questions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That logicians and computer scientists are ignorant of these
>>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>>> it no excuse for ignoring them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct question: "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect question: "Given that H is a correct decider for the
>>>>>>>> halting problem, does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will use your approach to this:
>>>>>>> Encode the context directly in the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>>>> shave himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus the question is not "Does D(D) halt?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question (with full context added) is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used the exact same method that you used on the barber paradox by
>>>>> encoding the full context of the question directly in the question.
>>>>> *Please do not be dishonest*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's still the wrong question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I proved otherwise by your own example, why lie?
>>>
>> You didn't prove anything. You used the wrong question.
>
> In other words you are saying:
> Does the barber shave himself? <is> the impossible question
> without the context details.

There is a correct answer to the question in every universe.

There is no universe where the context makes sense.

The context is incorrect, not the question.

On 1/7/24 03:55, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 7:19 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 02:10, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 3:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 21:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no halt decider that works correctly on incorrect inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no an incorrect input to a halt decider, except for input
>>>> which isn't a Turing machine. If a program has incorrect input, that
>>>> program isn't a halt decider.
>>>
>>> That <is> the received view, yet the received view never bothered
>>> to think these things all-the-way through. Only when this received view
>>> understands that the HP counter-example is isomorphic to determining
>>> whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
>>>
>>
>> A halt decider takes any program as input, or any program and its
>> initial tape contents (it doesn't matter which definition is used).
>> Are you trying to redefine the word "program"?
>
> I have been doing primary research on pathological self-reference
> for twenty years. It <is> the case that pathological self-reference
> <is> an error that must be rejected. The Liar Paradox <is not> a
> truth-bearer. Is <is> the case that all expressions that are isomorphic
> to the Liar Paradox <are> erroneous.
>

A halt decider takes any program as input. This is a definition. You
cannot refute a definition.

On 1/7/24 03:57, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 7:21 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 01:45, olcott wrote:
>>  >
>>> The ZFC axiom schema of specification forbids the
>>> creation of self-referential sets.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but you missed the forest for the trees. ZFC says that
>> self-referential sets do not exist.
>
> Not quite. ZFC prevents self-referential sets from coming into
> existence. Pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) must be
> rejected as erroneous.
>

Is it more obvious to say: Self-referential sets contradict the ZFC
axioms, so they can't exist in any world where the ZFC axioms are true.

>> Olcott machines say that self-referential programs do not exist. I
>> don't understand what you think is a self-referential program, but we
>> know how to construct one by following the steps of Linz (you said
>> this makes a self-referential program). So what happens when we follow
>> the steps? Is the result not a program?
>

And I suppose self-referential programs contradict the Olcott axioms, so
they can't exist in any world where the Olcott axioms are true. The
problem is that I just wrote one, so obviously the Olcott axioms aren't
true in this world I live in.

On 1/7/24 04:00, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 7:21 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 01:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 3:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 21:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case embedded_H can recognize the its input is a copy of its
>>>>> own TM specification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The specification of embedded_H can be modified without altering the
>>>> semantics. It will give the same answer as before, but it will no
>>>> longer be a copy.
>>>
>>> There are several ways to recognize pathological self-reference.
>>> I presenting the simple one that has fully operational code.
>>> I could not encode the other one because the x86 emulator could
>>> not handle it. None-the-less it still does work on the Peter Linz Proof.
>>>
>> Your simple one isn't isomorphic to a Turing machine.
>
> It demonstrates a basic principle COMPLETELY without the gaps
> in reasoning that must be included in every HP proof.
>
> I show how the exact same basic principle <is> applied to the
> Peter Linz proof.
>

Your simple on isn't isomorphic to a Turing machine, because of the
self-call-detection which has no analogue in a Turing machine.

On 1/7/24 04:02, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 7:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 01:26, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 2:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 21:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:52 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/24 19:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it <is> targeted it must reject the input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as it rejects self-contradictory input a targeted
>>>>>>> simulator remains correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> correct except for self-contradictory inputs, for which it is
>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't comprehend that invalid inputs are to be rejected?
>>>>> Is the Liar Paradox (true or false)? <is> an incorrect question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Does the blood moon howl?" is not an invalid input.
>>>
>>> People only change the subject using a strawman error when they
>>> are not honest enough to acknowledge that I made my point.
>>>
>> You made no point.
>>
>> "Is the Liar Paradox?" is a syntax error, like a Turing machine with
>> no states.
>>
>
> The evaluation of the Liar Paradox requires an infinite cycle
> in its directed graph. Prolog recognizes this and rejects it.
>

This graph is a property of the evaluator, not of the paradox. Not
everyone draws a directed graph when they see a paradox. The fact that
Prolog does doesn't say anything about the paradox.

The evaluation of "x = x + 1 - 1" is rejected by Haskell as a loop
error, but it's clearly a true statement.

On 1/6/24 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 1:52 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 19:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it <is> targeted it must reject the input.
>>>>>
>>>> A correct simulator cannot be targeted.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> As long as it rejects self-contradictory input a targeted
>>> simulator remains correct.
>>>
>>
>> correct except for self-contradictory inputs, for which it is incorrect
>
> So you don't comprehend that invalid inputs are to be rejected?
> Is the Liar Paradox (true or false)? <is> an incorrect question.
>
>

Whats "Invalid" about it?

Note, YOUR D, I can see as being rejected, since it isn't actually a
program, but the ACTUAL D from the proof, isn't invalid, unless you are
admitting that you Decider admits to not handling all inputs.

End the actual D from the proof DOES have a correct answer, it just
isn't the one that particular decider it was built on gives, and if your
H is any other program than that one, you counter example isn't actually
a counter example.

All you are doing is proving your are utterly insane, as well as a
pathological liar, as you can't distinguish between a single item and a
set of a multitude of them, you think that two things that are
definitely different can be "the same", and that it your D isn't
actually the D of the proof, but thats ok, and you can just claim that
it is and be right.

On 1/6/24 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> People only change the subject using a strawman error when they
> are not honest enough to acknowledge that I made my point.

So, you are admitting that you are not honest, and I have proven my point?

You rarely actually answer the questions put to you, and you throw up
strawmen (like Barbers) so, by your own definitions you are admitting
you are not honest.

On 1/6/24 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 1:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 2:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 10:23 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 9:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 04:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/2024 9:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/24 03:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What time it is (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point is that incorrect questions do exist and are defined
>>>>>>>>> as any question that cannot possibly have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> D(D) halts or it doesn't halt. I don't know which. If you tell
>>>>>>>> me the exact code of D, including H, I might be able to find out
>>>>>>>> (or I might not). If it halts, then the correct answer is true.
>>>>>>>> If it doesn't halt, the correct answer is false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise the barber either shaves himself or not...
>>>>>>> WRONG there is no such barber.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you find me a barber, he either shaves himself or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You weren't wrong about there being a barber. The barber shaves
>>>>>> himself or not. The only wrong thing is the statement "the barber
>>>>>> shaves all people who do not shave themselves." It's a false
>>>>>> statement. And I know it's false even if I don't know who the
>>>>>> barber is yet. It's always false for every barber.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect questions are defined as any question that cannot
>>>>> possibly have a correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect questions are defined as any question that cannot
>>>>> possibly have a correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect questions are defined as any question that cannot
>>>>> possibly have a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> And since the question: "Does D(D) Halt when run?" has a correct
>>>> answer for EVERY SPECIFIC D (which means it was built on a specific
>>>> H that gives a specific answer when asked about the D) has a correct
>>>> answer, the question isn't "incorrect".
>>>>
>>>> Nothing about the question says that H needs to be able to give it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is a program. D(D) halts or not. The only wrong thing is the
>>>>>> statement "H solves the halting problem." It's a false statement.
>>>>>> And I know it's false even if I don't know which program H is yet.
>>>>>> It's always false for every program.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we apply the ZFC solution to Russell's Paradox to
>>>>> its isomorphic HP counter-example it requires rejecting
>>>>> the pathological input as invalid.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be consistent in our reasoning we cannot say that
>>>>> that RP has been solved by ZFC and H/D cannot be solved
>>>>> by H rejecting D.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Russels paradox is solved by ZFC by just defining what sort of sets
>>>> we are allowed to look at. Russel's paradox is based on the idea
>>>> that sets can contain themselves, which is disallowed in ZFC.
>>>>
>>>> H/D is not about set containing themselves, so that isn't a problem
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the same pathological self-reference in both cases. When
>>> we say that a set cannot contain itself we can equally say
>>> that an input is not allowed to call its termination analyzer.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Show the ACTUAL "Reference" to H in a properly constructed "D".
>>
>> Remeber, by "proper construction" D gets a COPY of a specific H, not a
>> "reference to its termination analyzer".
>>
>
> In that case embedded_H can recognize the its input is a copy of its
> own TM specification.
>

Nope, non-computable problem. There are an infinite number of ways to
encode a given TM specification, so recognizing yourself is impossible.

The problem is that each state in the Turing Machine can be encoded as
any arbitrary state "name", and they can be in any order.

You were asked to try to disprove that and just gave up, admitting you
couldn't do it.

You are just proving your utter ignorance of the subject.

Note also, that still doesn't make the input have an "illegal reference"
to the decider, it just has some code in it.

On 1/6/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 3:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 21:32, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> In that case embedded_H can recognize the its input is a copy of its
>>> own TM specification.
>>>
>>
>> The specification of embedded_H can be modified without altering the
>> semantics. It will give the same answer as before, but it will no
>> longer be a copy.
>
> There are several ways to recognize pathological self-reference.
> I presenting the simple one that has fully operational code.
> I could not encode the other one because the x86 emulator could
> not handle it. None-the-less it still does work on the Peter Linz Proof.
>

No, the progranm you provide doesn't have two SEPERATE machines, one
described to the other, but one machine jumbled up trying to express the
general idea, but leaves open a hole that allows you to do something
that couldn't be done if the machines were done correctly.

Your inability to do it "right", even when it was told what it would
need to do, just shows that your prefer to live in the world of your
lies, rather than the truth, because it would have shown that you ideas
just don't work.

And, your method does NOT work on the Peter Linz proof, as you try to
draw paths that just don't exist.

On 1/6/24 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 7:21 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 01:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 3:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 21:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case embedded_H can recognize the its input is a copy of its
>>>>> own TM specification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The specification of embedded_H can be modified without altering the
>>>> semantics. It will give the same answer as before, but it will no
>>>> longer be a copy.
>>>
>>> There are several ways to recognize pathological self-reference.
>>> I presenting the simple one that has fully operational code.
>>> I could not encode the other one because the x86 emulator could
>>> not handle it. None-the-less it still does work on the Peter Linz Proof.
>>>
>> Your simple one isn't isomorphic to a Turing machine.
>
> It demonstrates a basic principle COMPLETELY without the gaps
> in reasoning that must be included in every HP proof.
>
> I show how the exact same basic principle <is> applied to the
> Peter Linz proof.
>

In other words, you are admitting to being insane as you think that
things that are different are the same.

You think that lies show truth,

You show you are an idiot.

The Halting Problem Proofs don't have "Gaps", they have things that you
don't understand because you choosed to be ignornate of how the theory
works (and perhaps because you are just not smart enough to learn it).