On 1/23/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:28 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 03:05, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2024 7:44 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 19:19 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 6:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 18:39 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 6:09 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 10:28 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:22:22 +0000, wij said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but
>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> for-
>>>>>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and
>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence
>>>>>>>>>> leads to
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university
>>>>>>>>>> courses
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing
>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The error in the article is the claim that an "inconsistent"
>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>> is somehow invalid. But it is not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A problem is a request to find at least one thing that
>>>>>>>>> satisfies
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> requirements of the problem or to prove that no such thing
>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>> found.
>>>>>>>>> The problem is well posed if for every thing it is possible
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>> whether it satisfies all requirements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solved: a proof that no Turing machine
>>>>>>>>> satisfies
>>>>>>>>> the requirements is known (and nothing else satisfies the
>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>> that it must be a Turing machine).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a matter of opinion whether the usual presentation of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> halting theorem is the best one. If one does not like the
>>>>>>>>> usual
>>>>>>>>> statement one may instead use:
>>>>>>>>>      For every universal Turing machine U and every Turing
>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>> H
>>>>>>>>>      there is an input string S so that
>>>>>>>>>      either T(S) halts but H(S) does not accept
>>>>>>>>>      or T(S) does not halt but H(S) accepts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This formulation has the disadvantage that it uses the
>>>>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>>>>> "univesal Turing machine", and therefore depends on the
>>>>>>>>> existence
>>>>>>>>> of one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation.
>>>>>>>> It looked to me it is the statement of Halting Problem proved
>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>> T nor F bugged these people (including olcott).
>>>>>>>> There is also a status of proposition called contingency,
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_(philosophy)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ultimately all these things boil down to the fact that
>>>>>>> self-contradictory questions must be rejected as incorrect
>>>>>>> questions. Hehner's paper explains this the best:
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key part that non-technical people can understand is
>>>>>>> Carol's question:
>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That question is self-contradictory when posed to Carol
>>>>>>> and has the correct answer of "no" when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carol's question actually originates from my own conversation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:  (USENET sci.logic)
>>>>>>>    > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>    > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>>    >  Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was addressed to me in 2004.
>>>>>>> Hehner had no way of knowing this I repeated this
>>>>>>> same question as Bill's question hundreds of times
>>>>>>> until I tracked down the original author.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HP is asking (equivalent) for A PROGRAM that takes another
>>>>>> program
>>>>>> as its argument and decides whether or not that given program
>>>>>> will terminate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HP is not asking the evaluation of "HP Theorem" (the
>>>>>> conclusion)
>>>>>> to be true or false!!!
>>>>
>>>>> The HP uses a counter-example D that does the opposite
>>>>> of whatever value that H returns, thus making the question
>>>>> Does D halt? a self-contradictory question for H.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you took it as:
>>>> Proposition P="A program that decides whether another program halts or
>>>> not is undecidable".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have gone over these details many many thousands of times since 2004.
>>> That actual question for H is this:
>>>
>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>   opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>
>> Wrong and dishonest.
>>
>>>
>>> *immibis came up with the exact isomorphism of the Barber Paradox*
>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>>  > himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>
>>
>> It has no correct answer because the barber doesn't exist.
>
> Wrong. It has no answer because it is a self-contradictory question.

Wrong. It has no correct answer because the barber doesn't exist. If the
barber did exist, there would be an answer.

On 1/23/24 17:57, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 05:01, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> It does seem to solve the halting problem correctly.
>>
>> No it doesn't. It says that D(D) doesn't halt, but D(D) halts.
>>
>
> A halt decider must report on the behavior that its finite string
> input specifies. Its finite string input specifies that it calls
> H in recursive simulation.
>
Wrong.

On 1/23/24 17:59, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 05:10, wij wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 22:01 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It does seem to solve the halting problem correctly.
>>>> People don't see it only because they care about disagreement
>>>> much more than they care about truth.
>>>
>>> Exactly, that is the same as why my claim "repeating decimals
>>> are irrational number" was not accepted. People's reality is
>>> actually those imposed from the system (school, government,..,
>>> society), not really the 'real' thing you discovered.
>>>
>>
>> I can't tell if this is trolling.
>>
>
> 0.333...
> Is not itself a rational number yet can be expressed
> as 1/3 which is a rational number.
>

0.333... means the sum of the infinite series (3/10, 3/100, 3/1000,
3/10000, 3/100000, ...).

On 1/23/24 18:00, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:35 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 01:33, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2024 5:21 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/24 22:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 1:55 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/24 20:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 1:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 20:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 10:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 16:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 1:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 1:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courses on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is one of three authors that agree on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is known that if you restrict the halting problem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs with a certain memory limit, it can be solved by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting decider which uses more memory than the limit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a program has limited memory, it has to  halt or loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within a certain number of steps (2 to the power of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of bits of memory available, including the program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter/state number). The Linz counterexample program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't lead to a contradiction, because it uses more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory than the limit, so the halting decider is unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyze it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stoddart has the same idea as Olcott: there's a hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable which tells the program whether it's already in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, and the program does something different if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's in a simulation than if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Stoddart doesn't say anything like this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't read what he said you only guessed what he said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the section 4.1 of the article:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Implementation of H₁ requires it to determine whether it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> being invoked
>>>>>>>>>>>> from within S₁."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> S ≙ if H(S) then Loop end.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He did not use that for a solution.
>>>>>>>>>>> He did use it to reject pathological inputs:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A halting decider works for ABSOLUTELY ALL PROGRAMS WITH
>>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXCEPTIONS, so he hasn't disproved the halting
>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't even understand that the Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>>>>>> nor false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't even understand that a halting decoder works for
>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY ALL PROGRAMS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been proven otherwise and the proof is simply over your head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot refute a stipulative definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> ZFC did show that the definition stipulated by naive set theory of
>>>>> the term {set} was incoherent.
>>>>>
>>>> No, Russell proved that naive set theory was inconsistent.
>>>
>>> Specifically that the definition of a {set} was inconsistent/incoherent.
>>>
>> No, the whole theory.
>
> When ZFC redefined {set} it replaced an incoherent definition with its own.
>
The definition is coherent. It just leads to a logical inconsistency.

On 1/23/24 18:03, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:41 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 05:30, olcott wrote:
>>> In other words you believe that the Liar Paradox has a truth value?
>>
>> If YOU believe that True(L,x) exists then YOU believe the Liar Paradox
>> has a truth value.
>>
>
> True(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ x) with its corresponding False(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ ~x)

Then you believe the liar paradox has a truth value.

On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 16:20, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-22 15:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:22:22 +0000, wij said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but cannot be
>>>>>> for-
>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and does not
>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a
>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university courses on
>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner claims the
>>>>>> halting
>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing something?
>>>>>
>>>>> The error in the article is the claim that an "inconsistent"
>>>>> specification is somehow invalid. But it is not.
>>>>
>>>> So if I asked you: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>> the type mismatch error doesn't prevent you from
>>>> providing a correct answer?
>>>
>>> I doesn't prevent me from providing an answer that I regard correct.
>>> Whether you can accept it as a correct answer is your problem, not mine.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>> That is not the way that truth really works.
>> When I say that 2 + 3 = 5 and you disagree then you are WRONG.
>
> When I say the halting problem is the problem of creating an algorithm
> that returns 1 if the direct execution of P(I) halts and 0 if the direct
> execution does not halt and you disagree then you are WRONG.

That definition is incorrect because it violates the correct definition
of a decider that must report on the behavior that its finite string
input 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 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 16:28, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 6:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-22 16:07:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-21 23:05:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 4:53 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 23:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 4:18 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 3:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 3:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 2:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 20:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Stoddart doesn't say anything like this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't read what he said you only guessed what he said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Stoddart quite literally says it. His hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable is called InS1. Did you read what he wrote? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you are lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch. That was part of his intermediate analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and his conclusion does not reference anything like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are talking about section 5, he says that S (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what he calls D) does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I and wij are talking about the fact that three computer
>>>>>>>>>>>> science
>>>>>>>>>>>> professors agree that the halting problem itself is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wij only referred to Stoddart's view, yet also quoted Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner's agreement. This is two of the three.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly ignored the question part of the post you
>>>>>>>>>>> replied to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I soon as I hit the first fatal flaw quit reading.
>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't freaking attempt to change the subject away from this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you admit to dishonesty. Nice. I don't think you've read any
>>>>>>>>> part of Stoddart's writing except for the conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you'll also find that Stoddart failed to formalize
>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is Stoddart's conclusion thus agreeing with Hehner's
>>>>>>>> conclusion that the halting problem itself is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for admitting you understand neither.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I simplified the language here are his exact words*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt
>>>>>>     test exists and then provides S as an example of a program
>>>>>>     that the test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all.
>>>>>>     It is not even a conceptual object, and this is due to
>>>>>>     inconsistencies in the specification of the halting function.
>>>>>>     (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>>
>>>>> That is false. For every program H there is a way to construct
>>>>> a program Ĥ so that either Ĥ halts and H does not say it halts
>>>>> or Ĥ does not halt and H does not say it halts. Perhaps Stoddart's
>>>>> S is not Ĥ but that does not prevent the construction of Ĥ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I have already proved countless times when D has been
>>>> intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>>>> Boolean value that H returns the question:
>>>>
>>>> D does halt on its input?
>>>> Is an incorrect question when posed to H because both true
>>>> and false are the wrong answer when this question is posed to H.
>>>>
>>>> The above only applied when H is required to report on the
>>>> directly executed D(D).
>>>
>>> If H is not required to do that then it is not required to be a halt
>>> decider.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>
>> H <is> not required to be the misconception of a halt decider.
>> Halt deciders are required to report on the behavior specified
>> by their finite string inputs. DD specifies recursive simulation
>> to HH.
>>
>
> This is your version. It isn't a halting-problem decider. It's an
> Olcott-problem decider. You changed the problem, so it's a different
> problem - one which nobody cares about.
>

All deciders have always been required to report on the properties
of their finite string inputs. This means that all halt deciders
have always been required to report on the behavior that their
finite string inputs 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 1/23/24 18:05, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:41 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2024 6:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/24 00:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 5:20 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you get this. Every system has a G that can't be
>>>>>> proved in that system,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet can be proved in metamathematics.
>>>>>
>>>> Is metamathematics a system?
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Then it has a G that can't be proven OR it allows false things to be
>> proven.
>
> Read the first few pages of the introduction
> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>

It seems that "metamathematics" simply means all systems outside of
mathematics, or at least outside of the formal logic systems they are
studying. If metamathematics includes English, then here is the
statement G for metamathematics in English:

"This sentence cannot be proven true in metamathematics."

On 1/23/24 18:16, olcott wrote:
> Most people are confused and don't understand that halt deciders
> must report in the behavior specified by their inputs.

One person (you) doesn't know what those words mean.

On 1/23/24 18:19, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 04:58, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have gone over these details many many thousands of times since
>>>>> 2004.
>>>>> That actual question for H is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>>>   opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just admitting that you have been working on a false
>>>> premsis for 20 years
>>>
>>> I merely put the full context of the question posed to H directly in the
>>> question the same way that immibis did for the Barber Paradox.
>>>
>>> The question superficially seems to be: Does the barber shave himself?
>>> This is NOT the actual question. immibis poses the actual question
>>> with its full context directly in the question.
>>>
>>> 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?" has no correct answer.
>>>
>>
>> It has no correct answer because there is no such barber. It is like
>> asking if a square circle is red. Square circles do not exist.
>
> The Barber paradox is not a vacuous truth it is a self-contradictory
> question.
>
> When we ask:
> How many square circles in my living room are red? the answer is none.
>

When we ask:
What colour is the square circle in your living room?
the answer is:....?

On 1/23/24 18:24, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 16:20, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-22 15:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:22:22 +0000, wij said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but cannot be
>>>>>>> for-
>>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and does not
>>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a
>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university courses on
>>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner claims the
>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The error in the article is the claim that an "inconsistent"
>>>>>> specification is somehow invalid. But it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if I asked you: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>> the type mismatch error doesn't prevent you from
>>>>> providing a correct answer?
>>>>
>>>> I doesn't prevent me from providing an answer that I regard correct.
>>>> Whether you can accept it as a correct answer is your problem, not
>>>> mine.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not the way that truth really works.
>>> When I say that 2 + 3 = 5 and you disagree then you are WRONG.
>>
>> When I say the halting problem is the problem of creating an algorithm
>> that returns 1 if the direct execution of P(I) halts and 0 if the
>> direct execution does not halt and you disagree then you are WRONG.
>
> That definition is incorrect because it violates the correct definition
> of a decider that must report on the behavior that its finite string
> input specifies.
>
A decider must report on whatever the problem it decides is.

On 1/23/24 18:26, olcott wrote:
> All deciders have always been required to report on the properties
> of their finite string inputs. This means that all halt deciders
> have always been required to report on the behavior that their
> finite string inputs specifies.

You obviously don't know what these words mean, if you think "the
behaviour the finite string input [which is a program] specifies" means
anything different from "the behaviour the program specifies" or "what
the program does".

On 1/23/24 17:40, olcott wrote:
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> Is an incorrect question for Carol and a correct question for everyone
> else.
>
> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns?"

What colour is the existing square circle in your living room?

On 1/23/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
> It does not say that. It is merely a sentence having no truth value.

If it has no truth value, then any proof that says it has a truth value
must be wrong. Yes?

If the liar paradox is false, then it has a truth value. But it doesn't,
so it can't be false. Yes?

If True(L,x) exists, then the liar paradox has a truth value. But it
doesn't, so True(L,x) doesn't exist.

On 2024-01-23 10:20, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 17:55, olcott wrote:

>> Wrong. It has no answer because it is a self-contradictory question.
>
> Wrong. It has no correct answer because the barber doesn't exist. If the
> barber did exist, there would be an answer.

Actually, it does have a correct answer. The correct answer would be
"no, because there is no such barber".

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 16:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-22 19:16:49 +0000, immibis said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/24 20:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 1:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/24 19:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-22 02:18:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 8:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 02:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 7:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 02:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 6:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 6:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 01:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 6:27 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 01:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 6:04 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 23:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski didn't understand that the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation of the Liar Paradox requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinite cycle in the directed graph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its evaluation sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand the difference between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonalization and infinite recursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think the real numbers are countable?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diagonalization is a process by which we know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is unprovable in L that makes sure to ignore the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why x is unprovable in L.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So are the real numbers countable? Isn't Cantor's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number pathologically self-referential, making his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument invalid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that LP is unprovable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE the directed graph of its evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence contains an infinite cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Provability doesn't give a flying fuck about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation cycles, whatever those are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure does in Prolog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then Prolog is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That Prolog pays attention to details that other systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore make it wrong is like saying that ignorance is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge and knowledge is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prolog handles SIMPLE logic system and problems. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejects ALL cycles, even if they don't cause logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues (as I understand it)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you fail to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took 18 months creating Minimal Type Theory that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically generated the directed graph of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation sequence of any of its expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sued syntax similar to FOL yet is as expressive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as HOL. I encode a SOL expression in MTT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are rebutting the infinite formulas such as
>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬True(¬True(¬True(...)))
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But this is already in the standard theory. Infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>> formulas such as ¬True(¬True(¬True(...))) are already not
>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott doesn't understand that diagonalization is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same as infinite recursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally a reply that is not nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>> Diagonalization only knows that for some reason or another
>>>>>>>>>>> x is unprovable in L.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I dispute the notion of "reasons". It's just a fact that it's
>>>>>>>>>> unprovable. There are different ways to find out that it's
>>>>>>>>>> unprovable, or different ways to understand that it's
>>>>>>>>>> unprovable, but not reasons why it's unprovable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the reason that x is unprovable in L is that x
>>>>>>>>> is semantically incorrect in L then instead of saying
>>>>>>>>> that x is undecidable in L the decider rejects x
>>>>>>>>> as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This what Tarski should have done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a formal theory nothing is semantically anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That it the reason why formal theories get confused
>>>>>>> and make semantic errors that are invisible to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody is talking about semantics except for you.
>>>>> *That is their mistake*
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the formal truth value of x?
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that seems over your head is the self-contradictory
>>>>> sentences cannot possibly have a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Every logical formula has a truth value.
>>>
>>> In a particular interpretation. In another interpretation it
>>> may have a different interpretation. For example,
>>>
>>> ∀x ∀y (xy = yx)
>>>
>>> is true about real numbers but not about quaternions.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Tarski's Liar Paradox has no truth value.
>> (1) x ∉ True if and only if p
>
> True is like the set of all sets which do not contain themselves.

On 1/23/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 17:19, olcott wrote:
>
>>  >>> You cannot refute a stipulative definition.
>> Yes you can and ZFC did:
>>
>> The definition of a {set} from naive set theory was found to
>> be incoherent and ZFC fixed this by overriding and superseding
>> this definition with its own definition of {set}.
>>
>>
>
> The stipulative definition of a set in naive set theory remains

Incoherent.

> stipulated in naive set theory. It is not stipulated in ZFC.

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

On 1/23/2024 11:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2024-01-23 10:20, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>
>>> Wrong. It has no answer because it is a self-contradictory question.
>>
>> Wrong. It has no correct answer because the barber doesn't exist. If
>> the barber did exist, there would be an answer.
>
> Actually, it does have a correct answer. The correct answer would be
> "no, because there is no such barber".
>
> André
>

*You are referring to a different question than this question*

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?" has no correct answer.

"every man" has a loophole thus the above must is corrected to say this:

"Does a barber who shaves EVERYONE who does not shave THEMSELVES shave
THEMSELF?

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

On 1/23/2024 11:20 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 7:28 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 03:05, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2024 7:44 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 19:19 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 6:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 18:39 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 6:09 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 10:28 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:22:22 +0000, wij said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> for-
>>>>>>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and
>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence
>>>>>>>>>>> leads to
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university
>>>>>>>>>>> courses
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The error in the article is the claim that an "inconsistent"
>>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>> is somehow invalid. But it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A problem is a request to find at least one thing that
>>>>>>>>>> satisfies
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> requirements of the problem or to prove that no such thing
>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>> found.
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is well posed if for every thing it is possible
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>> whether it satisfies all requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solved: a proof that no Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>> satisfies
>>>>>>>>>> the requirements is known (and nothing else satisfies the
>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>> that it must be a Turing machine).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a matter of opinion whether the usual presentation of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> halting theorem is the best one. If one does not like the
>>>>>>>>>> usual
>>>>>>>>>> statement one may instead use:
>>>>>>>>>>      For every universal Turing machine U and every Turing
>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>> H
>>>>>>>>>>      there is an input string S so that
>>>>>>>>>>      either T(S) halts but H(S) does not accept
>>>>>>>>>>      or T(S) does not halt but H(S) accepts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This formulation has the disadvantage that it uses the
>>>>>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>>>>>> "univesal Turing machine", and therefore depends on the
>>>>>>>>>> existence
>>>>>>>>>> of one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation.
>>>>>>>>> It looked to me it is the statement of Halting Problem proved
>>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>>> T nor F bugged these people (including olcott).
>>>>>>>>> There is also a status of proposition called contingency,
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_(philosophy)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ultimately all these things boil down to the fact that
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory questions must be rejected as incorrect
>>>>>>>> questions. Hehner's paper explains this the best:
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key part that non-technical people can understand is
>>>>>>>> Carol's question:
>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That question is self-contradictory when posed to Carol
>>>>>>>> and has the correct answer of "no" when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carol's question actually originates from my own conversation:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:  (USENET sci.logic)
>>>>>>>>    > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>    > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>>>    >  Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> was addressed to me in 2004.
>>>>>>>> Hehner had no way of knowing this I repeated this
>>>>>>>> same question as Bill's question hundreds of times
>>>>>>>> until I tracked down the original author.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The HP is asking (equivalent) for A PROGRAM that takes another
>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>> as its argument and decides whether or not that given program
>>>>>>> will terminate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The HP is not asking the evaluation of "HP Theorem" (the
>>>>>>> conclusion)
>>>>>>> to be true or false!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> The HP uses a counter-example D that does the opposite
>>>>>> of whatever value that H returns, thus making the question
>>>>>> Does D halt? a self-contradictory question for H.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems you took it as:
>>>>> Proposition P="A program that decides whether another program halts or
>>>>> not is undecidable".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have gone over these details many many thousands of times since 2004.
>>>> That actual question for H is this:
>>>>
>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>>   opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>
>>> Wrong and dishonest.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *immibis came up with the exact isomorphism of the Barber Paradox*
>>>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>  > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>>>  > himself?" has no correct answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has no correct answer because the barber doesn't exist.
>>
>> Wrong. It has no answer because it is a self-contradictory question.
>
> Wrong. It has no correct answer because the barber doesn't exist. If the
> barber did exist, there would be an answer.

On 1/23/2024 11:20 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 17:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 05:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It does seem to solve the halting problem correctly.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. It says that D(D) doesn't halt, but D(D) halts.
>>>
>>
>> A halt decider must report on the behavior that its finite string
>> input specifies. Its finite string input specifies that it calls
>> H in recursive simulation.
>>
> Wrong.

Verified facts are (by definition) never 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 1/23/2024 11:22 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 18:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 7:35 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 01:33, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2024 5:21 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/24 22:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 1:55 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 20:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 1:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 20:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 10:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/24 16:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 1:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 1:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courses on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is one of three authors that agree on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is known that if you restrict the halting problem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs with a certain memory limit, it can be solved by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting decider which uses more memory than the limit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a program has limited memory, it has to  halt or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop within a certain number of steps (2 to the power of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of bits of memory available, including the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program counter/state number). The Linz counterexample
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program doesn't lead to a contradiction, because it uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more memory than the limit, so the halting decider is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to analyze it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stoddart has the same idea as Olcott: there's a hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable which tells the program whether it's already in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a simulation, and the program does something different if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's in a simulation than if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Stoddart doesn't say anything like this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't read what he said you only guessed what he said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the section 4.1 of the article:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Implementation of H₁ requires it to determine whether it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being invoked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from within S₁."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> S ≙ if H(S) then Loop end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He did not use that for a solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He did use it to reject pathological inputs:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A halting decider works for ABSOLUTELY ALL PROGRAMS WITH
>>>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXCEPTIONS, so he hasn't disproved the
>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't even understand that the Liar Paradox is neither
>>>>>>>>>> true nor false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't even understand that a halting decoder works for
>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY ALL PROGRAMS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been proven otherwise and the proof is simply over your
>>>>>>>> head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot refute a stipulative definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ZFC did show that the definition stipulated by naive set theory of
>>>>>> the term {set} was incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, Russell proved that naive set theory was inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically that the definition of a {set} was
>>>> inconsistent/incoherent.
>>>>
>>> No, the whole theory.
>>
>> When ZFC redefined {set} it replaced an incoherent definition with its
>> own.
>>
> The definition is coherent. It just leads to a logical inconsistency.

{Incoherent} means leads to logical inconsistency.

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

On 1/23/2024 11:23 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 18:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 7:41 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 05:30, olcott wrote:
>>>> In other words you believe that the Liar Paradox has a truth value?
>>>
>>> If YOU believe that True(L,x) exists then YOU believe the Liar
>>> Paradox has a truth value.
>>>
>>
>> True(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ x) with its corresponding False(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ ~x)
>
> Then you believe the liar paradox has a truth value.
>

Invalid(L, x) ≡ (~True(L, x) & ~False(L, x))
Thus Invalid(L, LP) is TRUE.

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

On 1/23/2024 11:28 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 18:16, olcott wrote:
>> Most people are confused and don't understand that halt deciders
>> must report in the behavior specified by their inputs.
>
> One person (you) doesn't know what those words mean.

I am the author of those words, thus know what they mean.

It is not the behavior of the direct execution of D(D)
that D specifies to H. It is recursive simulation that
D specifies to H.

When D calls H in recursive simulation people make the huge
mistake that H can ignore this because D does not call H1
in recursive simulation.

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

On 2024-01-23 11:22, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 11:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2024-01-23 10:20, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong. It has no answer because it is a self-contradictory question.
>>>
>>> Wrong. It has no correct answer because the barber doesn't exist. If
>>> the barber did exist, there would be an answer.
>>
>> Actually, it does have a correct answer. The correct answer would be
>> "no, because there is no such barber".
>>
>> André
>>
>
> *You are referring to a different question than this question*
>
> 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?" has no correct answer.
>
> "every man" has a loophole thus the above must is corrected to say this:
>
> "Does a barber who shaves EVERYONE who does not shave THEMSELVES shave
> THEMSELF?

That was precisely the question to which I was referring. Its correct
answer would be "no, because there is no such barber".

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 1/23/2024 11:28 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/23/24 18:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 7:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 04:58, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have gone over these details many many thousands of times since
>>>>>> 2004.
>>>>>> That actual question for H is this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>>>>   opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are just admitting that you have been working on a false
>>>>> premsis for 20 years
>>>>
>>>> I merely put the full context of the question posed to H directly in
>>>> the
>>>> question the same way that immibis did for the Barber Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> The question superficially seems to be: Does the barber shave himself?
>>>> This is NOT the actual question. immibis poses the actual question
>>>> with its full context directly in the question.
>>>>
>>>> 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?" has no correct answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has no correct answer because there is no such barber. It is like
>>> asking if a square circle is red. Square circles do not exist.
>>
>> The Barber paradox is not a vacuous truth it is a self-contradictory
>> question.
>>
>> When we ask:
>> How many square circles in my living room are red? the answer is none.
>>
>
> When we ask:
> What colour is the square circle in your living room?
> the answer is:....?

Incorrect question.

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