On 1/18/24 22:08, olcott wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/18/24 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2024 1:46 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> "Does a barber shave every person who does not shave themselves?" is
>>>> also not a barber who shaves every person who does not shave
>>>> themselves. It is, in fact, a question written in the English language.
>>>
>>> The key point that I am making is that ZFC sets the precedent
>>> that undecidability can be abolished by correcting faulty definitions.
>>>
>> And my point is that "Does a barber shave every person who does not
>> shave themselves?" is a question you can ask in ZFC. It even has an
>> answer.
>
> You are technically incompetent.
>
> The sets required to to express the above question
> cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus the above question
> cannot be formalized in ZFC.
>

Questions aren't expressed as sets in ZFC. They are expressed as
formulas in first-order logic, which is part of ZFC.

On 1/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-18 17:28:09 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>>> shave
>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Cannot even be expressed*
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
>>>>> the barber paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>
>>>> Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
>>>> by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
>>>
>>> That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
>>> a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>> ZFC does not allow the sets representing
>> {a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
>> to come into existence.
>>
>> Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
>
> How do you represet in ZFC "a barber that does not shave himself"?
>
> Mikko
>

I only investigate thing to their relevant degree of detail.
The sets involved in the following question cannot be expressed in ZFC.

"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
himself?"

The key relevant aspect of this is that ZFC conquered undecidability
by redefining the meaning of its terms.

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

On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>
>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state and
>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>
>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are specified.
>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in some
>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>
>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>
>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>
> The following is proven completely true entirely
> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>
> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>

*That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
property of this finite string.

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

On 1/19/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-18 19:17:55 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> *HH is correctly simulating itself simulation DD*
>> Do you see the repeated state?
>> Do you know what the term {repeated state} means?
>
> Some systems are required to have a reapeated state that is
> reachable from every other state of the system.
>
> Some systems are required to have no repeated states.
>
> A Turing machine that has a repeated state with the same
> tape content and the same head position is permitted but
> it is not a decider.
>
> Mikko
>

DOES NOT HALT

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

On 1/19/2024 3:37 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/18/24 22:06, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/18/2024 2:43 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/18/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:47 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> I remind you:
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>> On 1/18/2024 10:04 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>  >>>> True or false: ∀x(Shaves(x,x) ⇔ ~Shaves(Barber,x))
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>> True or false: ∀x((x ∈ Shaves(Barber)) ⇔ ~(x ∉ Shaves(x)))
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>> Here are two out of many ways to express it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you can see my correction and copy it and adapt it
>>>> does not prove that you were wrong on your original version.
>>>>
>>> You said there was no way to express the question in ZFC. That I have
>>> expressed it refutes your statement that it cannot be expressed.
>>
>> YOU DID NOT EXPRESS IT IN ZFC.
>>
>> THERE IS NO WAY TO EXPRESS IT IN ZFC
>> DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO WAY TO EXPRESS IT.
>>
>> YOU MUST BE A TROLL
>>
>
> Why is the question
> > True or false: ∀x(Shaves(x,x) ⇔ ~Shaves(Barber,x))
> not in ZFC?
>
>

https://www.quora.com/Which-axiom-of-the-ZFC-set-theory-solved-the-Russell-paradox
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/19/2024 3:38 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/18/24 22:08, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/18/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/18/24 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:46 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> "Does a barber shave every person who does not shave themselves?"
>>>>> is also not a barber who shaves every person who does not shave
>>>>> themselves. It is, in fact, a question written in the English
>>>>> language.
>>>>
>>>> The key point that I am making is that ZFC sets the precedent
>>>> that undecidability can be abolished by correcting faulty definitions.
>>>>
>>> And my point is that "Does a barber shave every person who does not
>>> shave themselves?" is a question you can ask in ZFC. It even has an
>>> answer.
>>
>> You are technically incompetent.
>>
>> The sets required to to express the above question
>> cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus the above question
>> cannot be formalized in ZFC.
>>
>
> Questions aren't expressed as sets in ZFC. They are expressed as
> formulas in first-order logic, which is part of ZFC.

Which must be anchored in sets to be interpreted and having meaning.

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

On 1/19/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state and
>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>> specified.
>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in some
>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>
>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>
>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>
>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>
>
> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
> property of this finite string.
>
>

Why do you say that Halting is not a semantic property of that input?

You just don' know what "property" means.

On 1/19/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-18 17:28:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>>>> shave
>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Cannot even be expressed*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
>>>>>> the barber paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>> shave
>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
>>>>> by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
>>>>
>>>> That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
>>>> a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> ZFC does not allow the sets representing
>>> {a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
>>> to come into existence.
>>>
>>> Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
>>
>> How do you represet in ZFC "a barber that does not shave himself"?
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> I only investigate thing to their relevant degree of detail.

But you don't understand thing well enough to know what is the relevent
degree of detail.

> The sets involved in the following question cannot be expressed in ZFC.
>
> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
> himself?"
>
> The key relevant aspect of this is that ZFC conquered undecidability
> by redefining the meaning of its terms.
>
>

Nope.

ZFC didn't "Redefine" terms. It established a definition of terms to
build a system.

The old system (naive set theory) was shown to be unusable because it
was fatally inconsistent.

ZFC didn't try to "fix" Naive Set Theory, but established a brand new
set theory from its foundations, and then did the work to show what that
new Theory did.

If you think some system is unusable because it is fatally inconsistent,
you need to do a couple of things:

First, clearly demonstrate this fatal flaw.

Second, come up with a COMPLETE and DETAILED set of new criteria to
fully rebuild the system

And then lastly, go through ALL the logic to develop and show off your
new system.

On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/19/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in some
>>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>
>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>>
>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>
>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
>> property of this finite string.
>>
>>
>
> Why do you say that Halting is not a semantic property of that input?

*I never said anything like that*
You need to read what I say much more carefully.

Halting <is> a semantic property of that input.
Deciders sometimes decide syntactic properties of their input.

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

On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/19/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-18 17:28:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave
>>>>>>>> himself shave
>>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Cannot even be expressed*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
>>>>>>> the barber paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>>> shave
>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
>>>>>> by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
>>>>>
>>>>> That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
>>>>> a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ZFC does not allow the sets representing
>>>> {a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
>>>> to come into existence.
>>>>
>>>> Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
>>>
>>> How do you represet in ZFC "a barber that does not shave himself"?
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>> I only investigate thing to their relevant degree of detail.
>
> But you don't understand thing well enough to know what is the relevent
> degree of detail.
>
>
>> The sets involved in the following question cannot be expressed in ZFC.
>>
>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>> himself?"
>>
>> The key relevant aspect of this is that ZFC conquered undecidability
>> by redefining the meaning of its terms.
>>
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> ZFC didn't "Redefine" terms.

ZFC redefined the term {set} differently than naive set theory.

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

On 1/19/24 15:02, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 3:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/18/24 22:08, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/24 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:46 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> "Does a barber shave every person who does not shave themselves?"
>>>>>> is also not a barber who shaves every person who does not shave
>>>>>> themselves. It is, in fact, a question written in the English
>>>>>> language.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key point that I am making is that ZFC sets the precedent
>>>>> that undecidability can be abolished by correcting faulty definitions.
>>>>>
>>>> And my point is that "Does a barber shave every person who does not
>>>> shave themselves?" is a question you can ask in ZFC. It even has an
>>>> answer.
>>>
>>> You are technically incompetent.
>>>
>>> The sets required to to express the above question
>>> cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus the above question
>>> cannot be formalized in ZFC.
>>>
>>
>> Questions aren't expressed as sets in ZFC. They are expressed as
>> formulas in first-order logic, which is part of ZFC.
>
> Which must be anchored in sets to be interpreted and having meaning.
>

True or false?
∀x( ({{x}} ∈ Shaves) ⇔ ¬({{Barber},{Barber,x}} ∈ Shaves) )

Note: {{x},{x,y}} is the Kuratowski definition of an ordered pair
normally abbreviated as (x,y) however (x,y) is not defined syntax in
ZFC. If x=y this is the same as {{x}}.

Note: "Shaves" is a set of ordered Kuratowski pairs representing all
shaving relationships in the universe. If {{x},{x,y}} ∈ Shaves then it
means x shaves y.

On 1/19/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/19/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:28:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave
>>>>>>>>> himself shave
>>>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Cannot even be expressed*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
>>>>>>>> the barber paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>>>> shave
>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
>>>>>>> by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
>>>>>> a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ZFC does not allow the sets representing
>>>>> {a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
>>>>> to come into existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
>>>>
>>>> How do you represet in ZFC "a barber that does not shave himself"?
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> I only investigate thing to their relevant degree of detail.
>>
>> But you don't understand thing well enough to know what is the
>> relevent degree of detail.
>>
>>
>>> The sets involved in the following question cannot be expressed in ZFC.
>>>
>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>> himself?"
>>>
>>> The key relevant aspect of this is that ZFC conquered undecidability
>>> by redefining the meaning of its terms.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> ZFC didn't "Redefine" terms.
>
> ZFC redefined the term {set} differently than naive set theory.
>
>
>

By LEAVING Naive set theory and defining a new theory of set.

If you admit that you are working out side Computation Theory, and
working in Olcott-Computation Theory (or Olcott-Logic), you might be
able to make point, you, then just need to do the rest of the work and
show what Olcott-Computation Theory (or Olcott-Logic) can do.

You haven't done ANY of that work it seems. (remember, to do this you
have to start at the base of the theory you are trying to replace, not
the end).

Nor have you shown how the Standard Computation Theory (or Logic) are
grossely broken.

The fact that some problems don't have answers doesn't make it broken,
when the alternative is to not be able to ask about many of the problems
in the first place.

On 1/19/24 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/19/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>>>
>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
>>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
>>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
>>> property of this finite string.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say that Halting is not a semantic property of that input?
>
> *I never said anything like that*
> You need to read what I say much more carefully.
>
> Halting <is> a semantic property of that input.
> Deciders sometimes decide syntactic properties of their input.
>

Then it is valid to ask H if the direct execution of the program D(D)
Halts (since that is the definition of the Halting Property)

And since D(D) Halts when H(D,D) returns 0, then that H was not a
correct halt decider.

Note, "properties of the input", are by definition NOT dependent on who
you ask (if they are, then the input itself doesn't have that as a property)

Thus questions like "Are you a girl?" are not questions about a property
of the input, and thus not proper "decision problems"

Does the computation specified by the input Halt? IS a valid property of
an input (if it specifies a computation), so is a valid question, which
you have shown no H can get right for the input based on itself.

On 1/19/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/19/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/19/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:28:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave
>>>>>>>>>> himself shave
>>>>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Cannot even be expressed*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
>>>>>>>>> the barber paradox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave
>>>>>>>> himself shave
>>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
>>>>>>>> by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
>>>>>>> a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ZFC does not allow the sets representing
>>>>>> {a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
>>>>>> to come into existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you represet in ZFC "a barber that does not shave himself"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I only investigate thing to their relevant degree of detail.
>>>
>>> But you don't understand thing well enough to know what is the
>>> relevent degree of detail.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The sets involved in the following question cannot be expressed in ZFC.
>>>>
>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>>> himself?"
>>>>
>>>> The key relevant aspect of this is that ZFC conquered undecidability
>>>> by redefining the meaning of its terms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> ZFC didn't "Redefine" terms.
>>
>> ZFC redefined the term {set} differently than naive set theory.
>>
>>
>>
>
> By LEAVING Naive set theory and defining a new theory of set.
>

Yes good.

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

On 1/19/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/19/24 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/19/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines
>>>>>>>> that D
>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>>>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>
>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
>>>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
>>>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or
>>>> semantic
>>>> property of this finite string.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you say that Halting is not a semantic property of that input?
>>
>> *I never said anything like that*
>> You need to read what I say much more carefully.
>>
>> Halting <is> a semantic property of that input.
>> Deciders sometimes decide syntactic properties of their input.
>>
>
> Then it is valid to ask H if the direct execution of the program D(D)
> Halts

Not when Recursive simulation <is> an aspect of the computation
that DD specifies.

You cannot simply ignore that DD calls HH(DD,DD) in recursive
simulation, THIS IS AN ASPECT OF THE COMPUTATION THAT DD SPECIFIES.

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

On 1/19/24 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/19/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:28:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave
>>>>>>>>>>> himself shave
>>>>>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Cannot even be expressed*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
>>>>>>>>>> the barber paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave
>>>>>>>>> himself shave
>>>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
>>>>>>>>> by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
>>>>>>>> a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZFC does not allow the sets representing
>>>>>>> {a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
>>>>>>> to come into existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you represet in ZFC "a barber that does not shave himself"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I only investigate thing to their relevant degree of detail.
>>>>
>>>> But you don't understand thing well enough to know what is the
>>>> relevent degree of detail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The sets involved in the following question cannot be expressed in
>>>>> ZFC.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>>>> himself?"
>>>>>
>>>>> The key relevant aspect of this is that ZFC conquered undecidability
>>>>> by redefining the meaning of its terms.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> ZFC didn't "Redefine" terms.
>>>
>>> ZFC redefined the term {set} differently than naive set theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> By LEAVING Naive set theory and defining a new theory of set.
>>
>
> Yes good.
>

So you are admitting that all your talk is actually about
Olcott-Computation theory that no one but you need to use?

Thus, your claim to have "solved" the Halting Problem, or "disproved"
the Proof of the Halting Theory don't actually apply to the Computation
Theory that everyone else uses.

On 1/19/24 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/19/24 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2024 9:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines
>>>>>>>>> that D
>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions
>>>>>>>>> in some
>>>>>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt
>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>>>>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
>>>>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite
>>>>> string to
>>>>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or
>>>>> semantic
>>>>> property of this finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say that Halting is not a semantic property of that input?
>>>
>>> *I never said anything like that*
>>> You need to read what I say much more carefully.
>>>
>>> Halting <is> a semantic property of that input.
>>> Deciders sometimes decide syntactic properties of their input.
>>>
>>
>> Then it is valid to ask H if the direct execution of the program D(D)
>> Halts
>
> Not when Recursive simulation <is> an aspect of the computation
> that DD specifies.

Except it isn't, since D and DD, if they are actual programs, have their
own copy of H/HH and thus they call THEIR H/HH which simulates an input
that has its own H/HH, so you never recursed into the actual function
itself, only copies of it.

>
> You cannot simply ignore that DD calls HH(DD,DD) in recursive
> simulation, THIS IS AN ASPECT OF THE COMPUTATION THAT DD SPECIFIES.
>

Except to notice it isn't actual recursion.

If H/HH notice the use of copies of themselves, they need to understand
that they are ACTUAL copies of themselves, and will do just what they
do. H/HH can only assume they will infinitely recurse if they themselves
infinitely recurse, and thus don't give answers.

If H/HH give answers, then a correct analysis of the input will see that
D/DD call a copy that will return the exact same answer as they will.

This leads us into a possible path of looking at both possibilities, but
that gets us to the point where H might be able to figure out that it is
in trouble, and either answer it gives is wrong

This gets us to a possible expansion of the problem (that still admits
that there is no decider that always give the correct answer) by being
able to say "I can't tell", which is still not THE correct answer, but
isn't a wrong answer.

On 1/19/24 14:44, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-18 17:28:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>>>> shave
>>>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Cannot even be expressed*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
>>>>>> the barber paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself
>>>>> shave
>>>>>  > himself?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
>>>>> by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
>>>>
>>>> That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
>>>> a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> ZFC does not allow the sets representing
>>> {a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
>>> to come into existence.
>>>
>>> Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
>>
>> How do you represet in ZFC "a barber that does not shave himself"?
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> I only investigate thing to their relevant degree of detail.
> The sets involved in the following question cannot be expressed in ZFC.
>
> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
> himself?"
>

True or false?
∀x( ({{x}} ∈ Shaves) ⇔ ¬({{Barber},{Barber,x}} ∈ Shaves) )

Note: {{x},{x,y}} is the Kuratowski definition of an ordered pair
normally abbreviated as (x,y) however (x,y) is not defined syntax in
ZFC. If x=y this is the same as {{x}}.

Note: "Shaves" is a set of Kuratowski ordered pairs representing all
shaving relationships in the universe. If {{x},{x,y}} ∈ Shaves then it
means x shaves y. If ¬({{x},{x,y}} ∈ Shaves) then it means x does not
shave y.

On 1/19/24 14:57, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state and
>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>> specified.
>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in some
>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>
>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>
>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>
>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>
>
> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
> property of this finite string.
>
>
If D(D) halts then (D,D) has the syntactic or semantic property of halting.

On 1/19/24 15:01, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 3:37 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/18/24 22:06, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2024 2:43 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:47 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> I remind you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>> On 1/18/2024 10:04 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>  >>>> True or false: ∀x(Shaves(x,x) ⇔ ~Shaves(Barber,x))
>>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>>  >>>> True or false: ∀x((x ∈ Shaves(Barber)) ⇔ ~(x ∉ Shaves(x)))
>>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>>  >>>> Here are two out of many ways to express it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you can see my correction and copy it and adapt it
>>>>> does not prove that you were wrong on your original version.
>>>>>
>>>> You said there was no way to express the question in ZFC. That I
>>>> have expressed it refutes your statement that it cannot be expressed.
>>>
>>> YOU DID NOT EXPRESS IT IN ZFC.
>>>
>>> THERE IS NO WAY TO EXPRESS IT IN ZFC
>>> DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO WAY TO EXPRESS IT.
>>>
>>> YOU MUST BE A TROLL
>>>
>>
>> Why is the question
>>  > True or false: ∀x(Shaves(x,x) ⇔ ~Shaves(Barber,x))
>> not in ZFC?
>>
>>
>
> https://www.quora.com/Which-axiom-of-the-ZFC-set-theory-solved-the-Russell-paradox

Which part of ZFC is my question incompatible with?

And how about this set?
{Barber∈People | ∀x(Shaves(x,x) ⇔ ~Shaves(Barber,x))}
By the axiom of specification, this is valid.

There are two questions in this post. Don't dishonestly ignore one of them.

On 1/19/2024 12:13 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/19/24 14:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in some
>>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>
>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>>
>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>
>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
>> property of this finite string.
>>
>>
> If D(D) halts then (D,D) has the syntactic or semantic property of halting.

The finite string DD specifies that it calls HH in recursive simulation.
THIS CANNOT BE IGNORED

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

On 1/19/24 19:49, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 12:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/19/24 14:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>>>
>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
>>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
>>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
>>> property of this finite string.
>>>
>>>
>> If D(D) halts then (D,D) has the syntactic or semantic property of
>> halting.
>
> The finite string DD specifies that it calls HH in recursive simulation.
> THIS CANNOT BE IGNORED
>

If D(D) halts then (D,D) has the syntactic or semantic property of halting.

On 1/19/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 12:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/19/24 14:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The following is proven completely true entirely*
>>>>>>> *on the basis of the meaning of its words*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>> terminate normally then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
>>>>>>> emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are
>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> other order than they are specified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>> cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
>>>>> trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
>>>>
>>>> The following is proven completely true entirely
>>>> on the basis of the meaning of its words:
>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
>>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
>>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic
>>> property of this finite string.
>>>
>>>
>> If D(D) halts then (D,D) has the syntactic or semantic property of
>> halting.
>
> The finite string DD specifies that it calls HH in recursive simulation.
> THIS CANNOT BE IGNORED
>

But since HH does a CONDITIONAL simulation of its input, this recursion
is not non-halting.

HH needs to take THAT into account.

If HH does UNCONDITIONAL simulation, then yes, we can show that it would
be proper to abort and return 0, but it can't since it was defined not
to do so,

If HH is CONDITIONAL, as you define it, then it needs to take that
conditionality into account and not falsely assume unconditional behavior.