1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
2. Does Bob shave himself?

Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.

That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no
correct answer.

On 1/13/2024 8:08 AM, immibis wrote:
> 1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
> 2. Does Bob shave himself?
>
> Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
> Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.
>
> That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no
> correct answer.

Bob shaves everyONE who does not shave their selves.
Does Bob shave their self?

You erred because female Bob need not shave herself.

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

On 13/01/2024 17:11, olcott wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 8:08 AM, immibis wrote:
>> 1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
>> 2. Does Bob shave himself?
>>
>> Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
>> Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.
>>
>> That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no correct answer.
>
>
> Bob shaves everyONE who does not shave their selves.
> Does Bob shave their self?
>
> You erred because female Bob need not shave herself.
>

More obviously: yes Bob shaves himself *no contradiction*. E.g. maybe Bob shaves EVERYONE
(including all men who do not shave themselves).

Of course we can emphasise that (1) /intended/ to say "Bob shaves /precisely/ those men who do not
shave themselves".

Hmm, it definitely /doesn't/ actually say that, but we've seen similar wording so many times that we
just see a vague pattern and read it as what we were expecting. :)

Mike.

On 1/13/2024 2:00 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 13/01/2024 17:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/13/2024 8:08 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> 1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
>>> 2. Does Bob shave himself?
>>>
>>> Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
>>> Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.
>>>
>>> That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no
>>> correct answer.
>>
>>
>> Bob shaves everyONE who does not shave their selves.
>> Does Bob shave their self?
>>
>> You erred because female Bob need not shave herself.
>>
>
> More obviously: yes Bob shaves himself *no contradiction*.  E.g. maybe
> Bob shaves EVERYONE (including all men who do not shave themselves).
>
> Of course we can emphasise that (1) /intended/ to say "Bob shaves
> /precisely/ those men who do not shave themselves".
>
> Hmm, it definitely /doesn't/ actually say that, but we've seen similar
> wording so many times that we just see a vague pattern and read it as
> what we were expecting.  :)
>
> Mike.
>

immibis did have a brilliant insight into this.
By embedding the full context directly into the
question we can see that the question is incorrect.

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.

One thing that hardly no one ever bothered to notice
in the last 90 years is that the inability to answer
self-contradictory questions does not actually limit
anyone or anything.

I first noticed this back in 2004.

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

On 1/13/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 2:00 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 13/01/2024 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2024 8:08 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> 1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
>>>> 2. Does Bob shave himself?
>>>>
>>>> Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
>>>> Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.
>>>>
>>>> That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no
>>>> correct answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob shaves everyONE who does not shave their selves.
>>> Does Bob shave their self?
>>>
>>> You erred because female Bob need not shave herself.
>>>
>>
>> More obviously: yes Bob shaves himself *no contradiction*.  E.g. maybe
>> Bob shaves EVERYONE (including all men who do not shave themselves).
>>
>> Of course we can emphasise that (1) /intended/ to say "Bob shaves
>> /precisely/ those men who do not shave themselves".
>>
>> Hmm, it definitely /doesn't/ actually say that, but we've seen similar
>> wording so many times that we just see a vague pattern and read it as
>> what we were expecting.  :)
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>
> immibis did have a brilliant insight into this.
> By embedding the full context directly into the
> question we can see that the question is incorrect.
>
> 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.
>
> One thing that hardly no one ever bothered to notice
> in the last 90 years is that the inability to answer
> self-contradictory questions does not actually limit
> anyone or anything.
>
> I first noticed this back in 2004.
>

But the Halting Question isn't about an H correctly simulation its
input, as that doesn't actually make sense for a Halting Decider (as a
correct simulation of a Non-Halting input never halts, and deciders MUST
halt)

The Halting Question is about the invarient behavior of the machine
described by the input, and that has a difnitive answer.

Your attempt to rearrange it actually breaks the rules of computations,
as the input needs to be a particular FIXED input for any instance of
the question.

We can't ask the question about a "set" of inputs, as some may halt and
some might not.

You first DECEIVED yourself perhaps back in 2004 about this, since you
don't understand what you are talking about.

On 1/13/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 8:08 AM, immibis wrote:
>> 1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
>> 2. Does Bob shave himself?
>>
>> Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
>> Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.
>>
>> That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no
>> correct answer.
>
>
> Bob shaves everyONE who does not shave their selves.

Incorrect.

> Does Bob shave their self?

Yes.

>
> You erred because female Bob need not shave herself.
>

Bob is male.

On 1/13/24 21:10, olcott wrote:
> immibis did have a brilliant insight into this.
> By embedding the full context directly into the
> question we can see that the question is incorrect.
>
> 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.
>
> One thing that hardly no one ever bothered to notice
> in the last 90 years is that the inability to answer
> self-contradictory questions does not actually limit
> anyone or anything.
>
> I first noticed this back in 2004.
>

However, the halting problem isn't self-contradictory. You are unable to
show which of these principles results in self-contradiction: (This is a
no-input version of the halting problem because it is simpler to specify)

1. A Turing machine is a finite list of alphabet symbols, a default
symbol, a list of state numbers, an initial state number, a finite list
of accepting state numbers, and a transition table which maps each
(state × symbol) to another (state × symbol × direction).

2. The initial line of the execution trace trace(0) contains the initial
state number, and a tape consisting of one copy of the default symbol,
which is marked as the current position.

3. Each subsequent line of the execution trace trace(n+1) is formed
according to trace(n) by the following rules (applied simultaneously):
a. The active transition is the one which (trace(n) state number,
trace(n) tape symbol at trace(n) current position) maps to in the
transition table
b. trace(n+1) state number is the active transition's state
c. trace(n+1) symbol at trace(n) current position is the active
transition's symbol
d. trace(n+1) current position is trace(n) current position, moved
one cell left or right according to the active transition's direction
e. If the current position moves off the end of the tape, a default
symbol is added underneath the new current position.

4. The execution trace of a Turing machine is the sequence of steps
formed by repeatedly applying the rules in step 3 until it generates a
line with an accepting state number.

5. The execution trace of a Turing machine contains a finite number of
lines or an infinite number of lines.

6. If I tell you a Turing machine, can you figure out whether its
execution trace has a finite number of lines or an infinite number of lines?

Unless I've made a mistake, the above is the COMPLETE rule-set for a
version of the halting problem. The problem is that the rules are so
simple that there is no rule that leads to any obvious contradiction.

This is also true in naive set theory, when it says that a set
consisting of all objects that satisfy any given predicate. But naive
set theory contains a contradiction - see Russell. It was resolved by
saying that you can't always make a set consisting of all objects that
satisfy any given predicate.

Olcott wants to do something similar with Turing machines. The problem
is that there's nothing abstract in any of the rules. There's nothing
you can point to and refute unless you refute obvious common sense.
There aren't any rules about "any predicate". There aren't any rules
using higher-order logic that may be controversial.

Olcott can try to refute rule 1. You could say that some Turing machines
aren't actually Turing machines. But that's stupid.

Olcott can try to refute rule 2 or 3. That's stupid too. It defines
something that isn't a Turing machine. Note there are many equivalent
versions of the same ideas of Turing machines and halting, not just the
one I wrote, but they all have the same problem and nothing is solved if
you switch to one of the other versions.

Olcott can try to refute rule 4. That's stupid. It defines something
that isn't a Turing machine.

Rule 6 is just me asking the question and not an actual rule.

That leaves rule 5 as the most refutable rule. But rule 5 just says "X
or not X". If you refute that the length of a sequence is either finite
or infinite, you are refuting all logic and common sense, like trying to
argue that the colour of grass is yes.

Therefore Olcott can't win.

On 1/14/2024 1:30 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/13/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/13/2024 8:08 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> 1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
>>> 2. Does Bob shave himself?
>>>
>>> Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
>>> Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.
>>>
>>> That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no
>>> correct answer.
>>
>>
>> Bob shaves everyONE who does not shave their selves.
>
> Incorrect.
>
>> Does Bob shave their self?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> You erred because female Bob need not shave herself.
>>
>
> Bob is male.
>

You did not specify that thus leaving a loophole.
Bob could be the nickname for Roberta.

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

On 1/14/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/14/2024 1:30 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/13/24 18:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2024 8:08 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> 1. Bob shaves every man who does not shave himself.
>>>> 2. Does Bob shave himself?
>>>>
>>>> Point 1 is an impossible contradiction.
>>>> Point 2 has a correct yes or no answer.
>>>>
>>>> That I am wrong when I say point 1 does not mean that point 2 has no
>>>> correct answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob shaves everyONE who does not shave their selves.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>>> Does Bob shave their self?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> You erred because female Bob need not shave herself.
>>>
>>
>> Bob is male.
>>
>
> You did not specify that thus leaving a loophole.
> Bob could be the nickname for Roberta.
>

But then did Roberta shave herself or not?

Most Women DO shave, just not their face, I guess you don't interact
with adult women.

Just like there are some Men who don't shave at all, but that is ignored
in the problem too.