1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
P(I) halts or not.
5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is
wrong.
6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.
7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
NO EXCEPTIONS.

Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is refuted.
If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.

On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:

> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
> P(I) halts or not.
> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is wrong.
> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.

Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".

> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
> NO EXCEPTIONS.

The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
hard to implement).

Mikko

On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>
>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
>> P(I) halts or not.
>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>> is wrong.
>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>> wrong.
>
> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>
>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
>> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
> hard to implement).
>
> Mikko
>

The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
yes/no question has a correct answer. What time is it (yes or No)?
is a syntactically correct question that has no correct answer.

When we make the criteria: every semantically correct yes/no
question has a correct answer then: What time is it (yes or No)?
is rejected as semantically incorrect and

When a termination analyzer must report on the direct execution of D(D)
then: "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do
the opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer
and *Is rejected as semantically incorrect*

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

On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
> P(I) halts or not.
> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is
> wrong.
> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.
> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is refuted.
> If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.

The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
yes/no question has a correct answer. What time is it (yes or No)?
is a syntactically correct question that has no correct answer.

When we make the criteria: every semantically correct yes/no
question has a correct answer then: What time is it (yes or No)?
is rejected as semantically incorrect and

When a termination analyzer must report on the direct execution of D(D)
then:

"What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do
the opposite of whatever value that H returns?"

has no correct answer and *Is rejected as semantically incorrect*

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

On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
> P(I) halts or not.
> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is
> wrong.
> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.
> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
> NO EXCEPTIONS.

Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't valid
and you are right back down the crap hole. Probably the best you can do
along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input any
string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate. For example,
P could determine whether an S is a properly specified Touring machine
in some agreed upon encoding. It is not necessary that D check P(S);
rather it may rely upon it. If given bad input, P has no obligations to
satisfy. The strong requirements here are (1) P is decidable for all S
and (2) D(S) returns a correct decision when P(S) is true.

> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is refuted.
> If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 1/10/2024 12:49 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
>> P(I) halts or not.
>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>> is wrong.
>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>> wrong.
>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
>> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't valid
> and you are right back down the crap hole. Probably the best you can do
> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input any
> string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate. For example,
> P could determine whether an S is a properly specified Touring machine
> in some agreed upon encoding. It is not necessary that D check P(S);
> rather it may rely upon it. If given bad input, P has no obligations to
> satisfy. The strong requirements here are (1) P is decidable for all S
> and (2) D(S) returns a correct decision when P(S) is true.
>

That is the first thing that you ever said that was anything
more that a pure ad hominem attack.

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 }

The no one can possibly provide the exact sequence of
the execution trace D correctly simulated by H such
that this simulated D reaches its own line 09 conclusively
proves that D correctly simulated by H never halts.

Every rebuttal to this has always been the pure bluster
of dogma with zero supporting exact execution trace.

>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.

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

On 1/10/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
>> P(I) halts or not.
>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>> is wrong.
>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>> wrong.
>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
>> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>
>
> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
> yes/no question has a correct answer. What time is it (yes or No)?
> is a syntactically correct question that has no correct answer.
>
> When we make the criteria: every semantically correct yes/no
> question has a correct answer then: What time is it (yes or No)?
> is rejected as semantically incorrect and
>
> When a termination analyzer must report on the direct execution of D(D)
> then:
>
> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do
> the opposite of whatever value that H returns?"

Which isn't the Halting Question, but one converted into a invalid
self-referentail one.

The fact that your question breaks, just proves the Halting Theorem.

>
> has no correct answer and *Is rejected as semantically incorrect*
>

Right, Since No H can return the correct answer for the halting status
of the machine built on it, but there IS a correct answer for the
behavior of that machine, shows that there can not be a machine that
gets every answer right

Congratulations for actually proving the statement you are trying to
disprove.

On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>
>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>> is wrong.
>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>
>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>> hard to implement).
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
>
> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
> yes/no question has a correct answer.

No, it isn't.
It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.

Do you refute this definition?

On 1/10/24 15:34, olcott wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
>> P(I) halts or not.
>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>> is wrong.
>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>> wrong.
>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
>> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>
>
> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct

Which number 1-7?

On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
>> P(I) halts or not.
>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>> is wrong.
>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>> wrong.
>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
>> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't valid
> and you are right back down the crap hole.

That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is not
a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.

Probably the best you can do
> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input any
> string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.

I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and its
input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or not)
WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.

On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/10/24 15:34, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>> is wrong.
>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>> wrong.
>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>>
>>
>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>
> Which number 1-7?

7 No one has every bothered to notice that self-contradictory inputs
must be rejected as semantically unsound.

Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.

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

On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>
>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>>> is wrong.
>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>
>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>> hard to implement).
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>>
>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>
> No, it isn't.
> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> Do you refute this definition?

Yes I do.

Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.

Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>> is wrong.
>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>> wrong.
>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
>> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't valid
>> and you are right back down the crap hole.
>
> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is not
> a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>
>
> Probably the best you can do
>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input any
>> string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>
> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and its
> input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or not)
> WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>

If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.

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

On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/10/24 15:34, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>> is wrong.
>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>> wrong.
>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>>
>>
>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>
> Which number 1-7?

This was a very helpful insight in that placing the context of the
question directly in the question is the clearest way to explain
these things.

On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis 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.

*isomorphically*

*The question posed by the HP*
Does the direct execution of D(D) halt? Has a correct answer: it is yes.

*The question posed to H by its counter-example input*
What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no 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

On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Do you refute this definition?
>
> Yes I do.
>

So which number is that? 1-7?

On 1/11/2024 11:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>
>> Yes I do.
>>
>
> So which number is that? 1-7?
>

It is 7. I already said this.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/12/24 05:58, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:34, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>>> is wrong.
>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>>> wrong.
>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>>>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>
>> Which number 1-7?
>
> This was a very helpful insight in that placing the context of the
> question directly in the question is the clearest way to explain
> these things.
>
> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis 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.
>
> *isomorphically*
>
> *The question posed by the HP*
> Does the direct execution of D(D) halt? Has a correct answer: it is yes.
>
> *The question posed to H by its counter-example input*
> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>

Finally, Olcott has a breakthrough.

Now consider points 2 and 3. Does D(D) halt?

On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Do you refute this definition?
>
> Yes I do.
>
> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>
> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.

So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS
then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone else is
talking about.

On 1/11/2024 11:30 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 05:58, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/10/24 15:34, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>>>>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>
>>> Which number 1-7?
>>
>> This was a very helpful insight in that placing the context of the
>> question directly in the question is the clearest way to explain
>> these things.
>>
>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis 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.
>>
>> *isomorphically*
>>
>> *The question posed by the HP*
>> Does the direct execution of D(D) halt? Has a correct answer: it is yes.
>>
>> *The question posed to H by its counter-example input*
>> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>>
>
> Finally, Olcott has a breakthrough.
>
> Now consider points 2 and 3. Does D(D) halt?
I already answered that, please reread the above.

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

On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>
>> Yes I do.
>>
>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>
>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>
> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS
> then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone else is
> talking about.
>

*Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
They are making a mistake isomorphic to the mistake
that Tarski made by incorrectly construing the Liar
Paradox as a truth bearer.

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

On 1/12/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>
>>> Yes I do.
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>
>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>
>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone
>> else is talking about.
>>
>
> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*

OK so you haven't solved the halting problem at all. You think you've
solved a different problem. I don't think you've even solved the
different problem, because your solution still has problems, but since
it's a different problem, it may need a different proof. Right now, the
problem isn't specified properly because it's not clear which machines
are the self-contradictory ones that you don't think we should check the
halting status of.

As you know, a Turing machine is specified by a list of alphabet
symbols, which one is the default, a list of states, which one is the
initial state, which ones are accepting states, and a transition table.

Is there an algorithm, based on a list of alphabet symbols, which one is
the default, a list of states, which one is the initial state, which
ones are accepting states, and a transition table. tells me whether the
machine has undefined halting behaviour?

> They are making a mistake isomorphic to the mistake
> that Tarski made by incorrectly construing the Liar
> Paradox as a truth bearer.

So you believe that some logical statements are neither true nor false.

When I write something like "∀x. x + 1 = 5" you believe it's possible
that it might be neither true nor false. The one I just wrote is
obviously false, but you believe there are some that aren't true and
also aren't false?

On 1/12/24 05:28, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>>> is wrong.
>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>>> wrong.
>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
>>> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't valid
>>> and you are right back down the crap hole.
>>
>> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is
>> not a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>>
>>
>> Probably the best you can do
>>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input any
>>> string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>>
>> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and its
>> input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or not)
>> WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>
> If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
> What time is it (yes or no)?
>
> It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
> do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.
>

You can't even write a program that answers the question, so you can't
input the program to the halt decider. I repeat: ANY VALID PROGRAM.

On 1/12/24 06:37, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 11:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 05:58, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 15:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>>>>>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>
>>>> Which number 1-7?
>>>
>>> This was a very helpful insight in that placing the context of the
>>> question directly in the question is the clearest way to explain
>>> these things.
>>>
>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis 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.
>>>
>>> *isomorphically*
>>>
>>> *The question posed by the HP*
>>> Does the direct execution of D(D) halt? Has a correct answer: it is yes.
>>>
>>> *The question posed to H by its counter-example input*
>>> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>>>
>>
>> Finally, Olcott has a breakthrough.
>>
>> Now consider points 2 and 3. Does D(D) halt?
> I already answered that, please reread the above.
>

You didn't answer, so please answer now.

>>> *The question posed to H by its counter-example input*
>>> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.

This is wrong. *The question posed to H by its counter-example input*
Does the direct execution of D(D) halt?

On 1/12/24 05:22, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:34, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 1:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>>> is wrong.
>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>>> wrong.
>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Which one is refuted? Please specify which point 1 through 7 is
>>>> refuted. If you cannot specify, you are being dishonest.
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>
>> Which number 1-7?
>
> 7 No one has every bothered to notice that self-contradictory inputs
> must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>
> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>

In the system that everyone uses, all formulas such as "∃x. x > 5" are
either true or false. It is impossible to write a formula that isn't
true or false.

On 1/12/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>
>>> Yes I do.
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>
>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>
>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone
>> else is talking about.
>>
>
> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
> They are making a mistake isomorphic to the mistake
> that Tarski made by incorrectly construing the Liar
> Paradox as a truth bearer.
>
>

So, what makes that given D not a PROGRAM?

What rules of PROGRAMS has it violatd.

Remember, you have admitted that your D isn't actually a program, but
just a template, so you have admitted your whole arghument is based on a
dishonest strawman argument.