On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>
> 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?
>
> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY
>

After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.

*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*

Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott

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

On 1/28/24 06:18, olcott wrote:
> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?

Is it possible or impossible to make a program that always tells you
whether the direct execution of its input would halt?

On 1/28/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>
>> Daryl McCullough
>> Ithaca, NY
>>
>
> After all these years this deserves academic credit
> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
> problem's decider / input pair.
>
> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>
> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>

Except that "Programs" don't have a "Psychology" as they don't "Think"
but just do deterministic computations.

Maybe your problem is that YOU don't actually think, but are just
following "your programming".

The conversion of "Does the machine described by the input halt?", to
"what is the correct answer that H could give?", the way you do it,
ignores the fact that H, to exist, has already fixed its answerk so
asking what it could have done differently is asking about if Jack was
Jill ...

Now, if when poseing the question we don't imagine that this "alternate
H" changed all things that had been done based on what H was, it becomes
valid again, that the answer for your H is change to H1 that doesn't
abort, showing that a CORRECT question has an answer.

On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>
>> Daryl McCullough
>> Ithaca, NY
>>
>
> After all these years this deserves academic credit
> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
> problem's decider / input pair.
>
> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>
> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>

This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
professors express concurring opinions.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>
>>> Daryl McCullough
>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>
>>
>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>
>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>
>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>
>
> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
> professors express concurring opinions.
>

Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
"Context Dependent"

A computation can NOT be "context Dependent", as a fundamental property
of a computation is that it is generates a definative mapping of its
input to its output.

You make the error by assuming the input to be decided on it a "program"
that act contrary to what ever decider is trying to decide it. That
isn't the input of the proof, and isn't even a possible program.

The input is an input built to refute ONE PARTICULAR decider (not
whatever decider is trying to decide it).

It is presented as a template, that is combinded with whatever decider
we might want to try to claim is correct, and it produces an input that
it can be shown that that ONE DECIDER will get wrong. The "template"
isn't what is given as the input, but the program generated by applying
that template to the particular decider we want to refute, which IS a
program, and whose behavior is not dependent on who we ask about this
particular input, so in Context Independent, as ALL computations must be,

You, and the people you like to say support you, seem not to understand
this fundamental property of Computations, perhaps confusing a more
general concept of "Program" from other parts of Computer Science (Yes,
you need to look at the field and what definitions and terms it uses).

On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>
>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>
>>>
>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>
>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>
>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>
>>
>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>
>
> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
> "Context Dependent"

Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>
>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>
>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>
>>>
>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>
>>
>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
>> "Context Dependent"
>
> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>

Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not properly
defined.

By the basic rules of Computation theory, if H(M,d) is a
Computation/Program, then the D(d) Computation/Program can be correctly
defined, as it is built with fundamental steps.

Thus, the complaints that This "Pathological" input might not be a
program just shows their lack of understanding.

On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>
>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>
>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>
>>>
>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>
>>
>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
>> "Context Dependent"
>
> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>

So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
definite deterministic instructions that depend only on the inputs to
the computation and intermediate reuslts (a more formal/structureal
description of a Computation) that can be "Context dependent". That is,
show an execution trace of two such identical sequences of instructions,
with the same inputs, that cause a difference in execution path, by
showing the FIRST difference that occurs.

You can't doing it, and your failure to show just means you have proven
you just lied.

I have explained the error that you made, and they they made. Failure to
use the actual definitions of the field show a lack of understanding of
the field

On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>
>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
>>> "Context Dependent"
>>
>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>
>
> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not properly
> defined.

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)

The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
>>>> "Context Dependent"
>>>
>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>
>>
>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>> properly defined.
>
>    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)
>
> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
>

If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a PROGRAM
that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT, and that it what the
Halting Theorem proves. So you are just admitting that you are wrong to
complain about the Halting Proglem.

If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that the question the prospective Halt
Decider is asked doesn't have an answer, you are wrong.

EVERY Program/Input pair will have a correct answer for the Halting
Question, as the program will either Halt or Not. Thus the question is
"Valid". This template just produces an input that a given decider will
get wrong.

Note, The specification being "Unsatisfiable" in the sense that no
program can be created, does NOT make the specification "Inconsistant"
(which means there is either no answer or multiple answer when only one
is allowed to a given question).

Stoddart is just showing his ignorance. His claim that "S is not a
program at all" is just a false statement or making an improper nit-pic
between the description (detailed enough to be followed to contruct the
program in question) and the actual code of the program that derives
from the specification.

On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can
>>>>> be "Context Dependent"
>>>>
>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>> properly defined.
>>
>>     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)
>>
>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
>>
>
> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a PROGRAM
> that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,

Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.

What correct Boolean value does H return for input D that has
been defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?

*Is isomorphic to 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 question that has been defined to have no correct
answer <is> an incorrect question:

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can
>>>>>> be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>
>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>>> properly defined.
>>>
>>>     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)
>>>
>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
>>>
>>
>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>
> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
> What time is it (yes or no)?
> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.

Nope. Strawman.

Does the

>
> What correct Boolean value does H return for input D that has
> been defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?

Which ISN'T the Halting Question.

>
> *Is isomorphic to 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.

Yes, because as the Halting Theorem has proven, The machine you are
defining as your H, just doens't exsits, just like the Barber doesn't exist.

>
> Every question that has been defined to have no correct
> answer <is> an incorrect question:

But the actual question, has a correct answer.

Change your quesiton to: What answer should a correct halt decider
return to be correct for the input designed to do the opposiite of a
particular claimed Halt Decider return?

And we HAV# a correct answer, whatever is the opposite of what that
decider produced (or non-halting if it doesn't answer).

>
> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> > PREMISES:
> > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> > was defined to be impossible.

FALSE. The genesis of the Halting Problem predated the discovery that it
was impossible, and was in fact hoped and even presumed to be possible.

Alan Turing just showed that there was a particular input that could be
created that was impossible for a given machine to answer correctly.

> >
> > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.

So, you are confusing Problems with Questions.

The Halting Question is: Does the Machine and Input described by your
input Halt when run

The Halting Problem: Can you make a machine that computes this answer
for every possible input.

The Question clearly has a correct answer for every possible machine /
Input combination, as the Halting Property obeys the principle of the
excluded middle and non-contradictory. (it is impossible for a given
machine / input to be either BOTH Halting and non-halting or neither
Halting and Non-Halting. One MUST occur and excludes the other (since
any machine that doesn't Halt is defined to be Non-Halting).

> > …
> > CONCLUSION:
> > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.

UNSOUND & INVALID LOGIC since it uses false premsise and invalid logic
(Problems are different then Quesitons)

> >
> USENET Message-ID:
> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>

On 1/28/24 19:37, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>
>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>
>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>
>>>
>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>
>>
>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
>> "Context Dependent"
>
> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>
Can you specify how to execute a Turing machine?

On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can
>>>>>>> be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>>>> properly defined.
>>>>
>>>>     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)
>>>>
>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>
>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>
> Nope. Strawman.
>

Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 22:22, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation
>>>>>>>> can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>>>>> properly defined.
>>>>>
>>>>>     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)
>>>>>
>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>
>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>
>> Nope. Strawman.
>>
>
> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>

True or false: Every sequence is either finite or infinite.

On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation
>>>>>>>> can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>>>>> properly defined.
>>>>>
>>>>>     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)
>>>>>
>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>
>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>
>> Nope. Strawman.
>>
>
> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>

Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
ignorant to know the meaning of the words.

A QUESTION is incorrect, if it does not have a possible answer. Thus,
"What is the Truth Value of the Liar's Paradox" in an incorrect question.

An UNSATISFIABLE problem in Compuation Theory is a Problem that asks if
you can build a Machine that computes the answer to a Question for all
possible inputs.

That doesn't mean the Question doesn't have an answer for all possible
inputs, just that we can not build a computaton structure that gives
that answer in a finite number of steps.

The Halting Question has, as I have explained, a correct answer for
every possible program/input combination, as that compuation will either
finish in finite time or not.

The Halting Question is shown to be uncomputable, and thus the Halting
PRoblem unsatisfiable, because for any machine you might try to claim is
a solution to the problem, there is an input that it get wrong.

Thus, Halting has a valid question, but in uncomputable.

You just seem unable to distinguish between these seperate facts,
because you are just too ignorant about what they actually mean.

You are just proving yourself to be an Insane and Ignorant Hypocritical
Pathological Lying Idiot.

On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in
>>>>>>>>>> 2004)
>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation
>>>>>>>>> can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>>>>>> properly defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>>
>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>
>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>
>>
>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>
>
>
> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
> ignorant to know the meaning of the words.

"Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
*Then you tell me what you think that means*

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in
>>>>>>>>>>> 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation
>>>>>>>>>> can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>>>>>>> properly defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
>> ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>
> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>

A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
number of steps.

Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.

Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no program
can compute it).

On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation
>>>>>>>>>>> can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
>>>>>>>>> properly defined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>>>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
>>> ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>>
>> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
>> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>>
>
> A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
> exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
> Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
> computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
> number of steps.
>
> Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
> computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
>
> Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no program
> can compute it).

Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is
>>>>>>>>>> not properly defined.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>>>>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
>>>> ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>>>
>>> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
>>> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>>>
>>
>> A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
>> exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
>> Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
>> computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
>> number of steps.
>>
>> Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
>> computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
>>
>> Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
>> program can compute it).
>
> Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
> are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
>

Nope, not in this case.

Inputs are just strings that represent programs, and programs are self
contained blocks that always have a defined behavior.

No posibility for an actual PROGRAM to be "self-contradictory".

You get into your "Contradiction" by ignoring that H is a PROGRAM, and a
piece of the PROGRAM of D, and thus, must have defined behavior, so
"Unless" or "Must" (as you are trying to use them) don't really have
meaning.

A program does what it is programmed to do, and that result will either
be correct or incorrect.

Please try to show me a program that doesn't have a correct answer to
the question: "Does this program halt when run?"

(Note, Not your non-equivalent variant of correct simulation by H)

It can be a D built on an H, but you have to define the H.

And "Get the right answer" is NOT a programatic step.

If you want to specify until a such and such condition occurs, you need
to spell them out, not just "Correct Halting Patterns"

On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is
>>>>>>>>>>> not properly defined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are
>>>>>>>>>> saying is
>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
>>>>>>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
>>>>> ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>>>>
>>>> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
>>>> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>>>>
>>>
>>> A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
>>> exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
>>> Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
>>> computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
>>> number of steps.
>>>
>>> Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
>>> computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
>>>
>>> Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
>>> program can compute it).
>>
>> Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
>> are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
>>
>
>
> Nope, not in this case.

It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
because their inputs are self-contradictory.

If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not properly defined.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are
>>>>>>>>>>> saying is
>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write
>>>>>>>>>> a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>>>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just
>>>>>> to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
>>>>> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
>>>> exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
>>>> Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
>>>> computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
>>>> number of steps.
>>>>
>>>> Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
>>>> computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
>>>>
>>>> Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
>>>> program can compute it).
>>>
>>> Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
>>> are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, not in this case.
>
> It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
> because their inputs are self-contradictory.

Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will either
Halt or Not.

So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
"Self-Contradictory"

IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this.

>
> If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>

On 1/28/2024 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me in 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not properly defined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write
>>>>>>>>>>> a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>>>>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just
>>>>>>> to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
>>>>>> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
>>>>> exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like
>>>>> the Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
>>>>> computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a
>>>>> finite number of steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program
>>>>> that computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
>>>>> program can compute it).
>>>>
>>>> Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
>>>> are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, not in this case.
>>
>> It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
>> because their inputs are self-contradictory.
>
> Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
> self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will either
> Halt or Not.
>
> So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
> "Self-Contradictory"
>
> IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this.
>
>>
>> If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>
>
> And what does Tarski have to do with "Halting" or "Computation Theory"?
>
> (Well there is a connection, but deeper than you seem to understand)

On 1/28/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me in 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not properly defined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>> write a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY
>>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>>>>>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just
>>>>>>>> to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
>>>>>>> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if
>>>>>> there exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs
>>>>>> (like the Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a
>>>>>> finite computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in
>>>>>> a finite number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program
>>>>>> that computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
>>>>>> program can compute it).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
>>>>> are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, not in this case.
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
>>> because their inputs are self-contradictory.
>>
>> Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
>> self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will
>> either Halt or Not.
>>
>> So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
>> "Self-Contradictory"
>>
>> IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this.
>>
>>>
>>> If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>
>>
>> And what does Tarski have to do with "Halting" or "Computation Theory"?
>>
>> (Well there is a connection, but deeper than you seem to understand)
>
> Tarski concluded that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist
> on the basis that this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true" ?
> has no correct answer.
>
> When the formalized Liar Paradox is the input to a decider decision
> theory concludes that it is undecidable rather than incorrect.
>

On 1/28/2024 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl McCullough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ithaca, NY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all these years this deserves academic credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me in 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004 claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not properly defined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> write a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Strawman.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are
>>>>>>>>> just to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
>>>>>>>> *Then you tell me what you think that means*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if
>>>>>>> there exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs
>>>>>>> (like the Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a
>>>>>>> finite computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs
>>>>>>> in a finite number of steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program
>>>>>>> that computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
>>>>>>> program can compute it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
>>>>>> are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, not in this case.
>>>>
>>>> It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
>>>> because their inputs are self-contradictory.
>>>
>>> Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
>>> self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will
>>> either Halt or Not.
>>>
>>> So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
>>> "Self-Contradictory"
>>>
>>> IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what does Tarski have to do with "Halting" or "Computation Theory"?
>>>
>>> (Well there is a connection, but deeper than you seem to understand)
>>
>> Tarski concluded that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist
>> on the basis that this question:
>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true" ?
>> has no correct answer.
>>
>> When the formalized Liar Paradox is the input to a decider decision
>> theory concludes that it is undecidable rather than incorrect.
>>
>
>
> We were talking about the Halting Problem.