On 1/28/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>
> Since you do not understand how deciders works then you cannot
> understand how halt decider work.
>
> Decision theory concludes that undecidable decision problems prove
> that a theory is incomplete when it cannot prove or refute syntactically
> correct expressions that are semantic nonsense.
>
> "this sentence is not true" is a syntactically correct sentence
> that is an semantically incorrect statement.
>
> I owned LiarParadox.org for several years because many undecidable
> decision problems are isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>
>

On 1/28/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Since you do not understand how deciders works then you cannot
>> understand how halt decider work.
>>
>> Decision theory concludes that undecidable decision problems prove
>> that a theory is incomplete when it cannot prove or refute syntactically
>> correct expressions that are semantic nonsense.
>>
>> "this sentence is not true" is a syntactically correct sentence
>> that is an semantically incorrect statement.
>>
>> I owned LiarParadox.org for several years because many undecidable
>> decision problems are isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>
>>
>
> In other words, because you don't understand how logic works, you have
> come up with cockamamie theorys of how it should work.
>

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:

> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
> halting problem is an ill-formed question.

Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
proved, and you have done nothing to change that.

On 2024-01-28 19:25:42 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

That is a reasonable way to say it but only if you accept that there
is a proof that the specification is unsatisfiable. If you reject all
proposed proofs you must say that it is an open question whether the
halting problem is defined with unsatisriable specification.

Mikko

On 1/28/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Since you do not understand how deciders works then you cannot
>>> understand how halt decider work.
>>>
>>> Decision theory concludes that undecidable decision problems prove
>>> that a theory is incomplete when it cannot prove or refute syntactically
>>> correct expressions that are semantic nonsense.
>>>
>>> "this sentence is not true" is a syntactically correct sentence
>>> that is an semantically incorrect statement.
>>>
>>> I owned LiarParadox.org for several years because many undecidable
>>> decision problems are isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In other words, because you don't understand how logic works, you have
>> come up with cockamamie theorys of how it should work.
>>
>
> Try and show how a decider can correctly decide the truth value
> of the formalized version of this: "this sentence is not true".
>

On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>
>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>
> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.

Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.

Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
incorrect question.

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

On 1/29/24 14:53, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>
>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>
> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>
> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
> incorrect question.
>

The question:
Does this question have a correct answer:
Is this sentence true or false:
This sentence is not true.

has an answer.

On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>
>
> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of

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.
>

[1] E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

[2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
13 Nov 2014
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]

[3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

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

On 1/29/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>>
>>
>> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
>
> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed

What about my formulation?
1. An execution point is the current state number and tape contents.
2. An execution sequence is the sequence of execution points a Turing
machine/input pair has, ending when it gets to a final state.
3. The halting problem is to write a Turing machine that takes a Turing
machine/input pair as input, and tells whether that Turing machine/input
pair has an infinite execution sequence.

You have ignored this formulation the last 3 times it was posted.

I suppose you'll reply to this one with a straw man or irrelevant argument.

On 1/29/2024 10:44 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/29/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
>>
>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>
> What about my formulation?
> 1. An execution point is the current state number and tape contents.
> 2. An execution sequence is the sequence of execution points a Turing
> machine/input pair has, ending when it gets to a final state.
> 3. The halting problem is to write a Turing machine that takes a Turing
> machine/input pair as input, and tells whether that Turing machine/input
> pair has an infinite execution sequence.
>
> You have ignored this formulation the last 3 times it was posted.
>
> I suppose you'll reply to this one with a straw man or irrelevant argument.

Every instance of the conventional halting problem proofs
has an input D that attempts to do the opposite of whatever
Boolean value that H returns.

If it was successful then it would be a self-contradictory question
like this one:

Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?

For a simulating halt decider D cannot possibly reach the point
in its own execution trace where it derives the contradiction.

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

On 1/29/2024 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-28 19:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> 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.
>
> That is a reasonable way to say it but only if you accept that there
> is a proof that the specification is unsatisfiable. If you reject all
> proposed proofs you must say that it is an open question whether the
> halting problem is defined with unsatisriable specification.
>
> Mikko
>

Self-contradictory questions have been shown to define infinite
structures that cannot be resolved in finite time.

These expressions are undecidable because they are incorrect.

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

On 1/29/24 18:47, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 10:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
>>>
>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>
>> What about my formulation?
>> 1. An execution point is the current state number and tape contents.
>> 2. An execution sequence is the sequence of execution points a Turing
>> machine/input pair has, ending when it gets to a final state.
>> 3. The halting problem is to write a Turing machine that takes a
>> Turing machine/input pair as input, and tells whether that Turing
>> machine/input pair has an infinite execution sequence.
>>
>> You have ignored this formulation the last 3 times it was posted.
>>
>> I suppose you'll reply to this one with a straw man or irrelevant
>> argument.
>
> Every instance of the conventional halting problem proofs
> has an input D that attempts to do the opposite of whatever
> Boolean value that H returns.
>
> If it was successful then it would be a self-contradictory question
> like this one:
>
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
>
> For a simulating halt decider D cannot possibly reach the point
> in its own execution trace where it derives the contradiction.
>
You have now ignored the formulation four (4) times. Nothing in your
reply refers to anything that I said.

On 1/29/24 18:47, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 10:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>
>> What about my formulation? >> [formulation]
>> You have ignored this formulation the last 3 times it was posted.
>>
>> I suppose you'll reply to this one with a straw man or irrelevant
>> argument.
>
> [irrelevant stuff]

What you are saying is that my formulation is wrong because you want it
to be wrong because if it is not wrong then you are wrong.

On 1/29/24 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>>
>>
>> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
>
> 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.
> >
>
> [1] E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

But the Halting Problem is a PURELY OBJECTIVE.

Note also, His definition of a "Program" does not match that of a Turing
Machine.

For one thing, his "Halting Analyzer" is not of the same class as the
programs it is to decide on. He limits its inputs to "L-Programs" that
can have no inputs, but it itself has an input.

So, his "answer" to the Halting Problem is to just restrict the inputs
to machines lesser than the deciders, an well known answer.

And then he makes the determinatiom of whether a question is "Objective"
or "Subjective" NOT based on the actual meaning of the words, but makes
any question that can not be computed as "Subjective".

This is just FALSE.

>
> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
> 13 Nov 2014
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]

WHich just shows that he doesn't understand what a Compuation IS in
computation theory. It is BY DEFINITION, a finite deterministic
algorithm applied to a defined input.

As such, an "function" that depends on things not considered "input" is
not a computation.

Yes, in a non-Turing system, it is possible to define things that might
be called "functions" that are dependent on things besides their formal
parameters.

If you look at his examples, this is EXACTLY what his "CDFS" do.

Such functions can NOT be converted into Turing Machines.

So, his arguement is outside the domains of "Compuation Theory".

>
> [3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
>

Here, the author says that

S defined as If H(S) then Loop else end.

"Can't be implemented", and the reasoning is that since H can't be made,
the problem is with S (and not the unimplementability of Halting Detection).

He says:

There is no reason, however, why the halt test cannot terminate in other
situations, or why failure to halt cannot be reported via an error
message when the halt test itself cannot halt.

Except that to do so violates the definition of a Decider, being a
program that ALWAYS delivers its answer to its caller/use.

And again, he ignores that the DEFINITION of the sort of thing that H is
required to be, a COMPUTATION, by DEFINITION is only a function of its
formal parameters, and thus when he talks about H determining if it is
being called by S just invalidates his argument.

So, the common thread in all these papers, as well as your own, is that
they are ignoring the actual definition of what a Compuation (commonly
called a "Program" in lay terms) actually is, and thus show that they
are NOT actually working on the Halting Problem of Compuation Theory.

Yes, my guess is a lot of people have similar misunderstandings, but
that doesn't make them right.

You are just putting you lot with people who have shown that they don't
know what they are talking about as far as the requirements of
Computation Theory.

They all refer to being "equivalent" to Turing Machines, but all the
"programs" they propose can not be converted to Turing Machines as they
all need "secret" inputs which just do not exist with a Turing machine.
That is one of the powers of the simple Turing Machine architecture, ANY
Turing Machine MUST perform a computation (or be non-halting depending
on the exact version of the definition of Computation being used) while
many other architectures allow for hidden data paths that allow
"programs" that fail to be compuations (but might be a piece of a large
Computation).

On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>
>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>
> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>
> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
> incorrect question.
>

And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.

On 1/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/29/24 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
>>
>> 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.
>>  >
>>
>> [1] E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> But the Halting Problem is a PURELY OBJECTIVE.
>

Professor Hehner defines what he means by his terms.

> Note also, His definition of a "Program" does not match that of a Turing
> Machine.
>

Isomorphism

> For one thing, his "Halting Analyzer" is not of the same class as the
> programs it is to decide on. He limits its inputs to "L-Programs" that
> can have no inputs, but it itself has an input.
>

That is a mere simplification that changes nothing.
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
Professor C. Strachey does the same thing.

> So, his "answer" to the Halting Problem is to just restrict the inputs
> to machines lesser than the deciders, an well known answer.
>

The key portion of his answered is anchored in Carol's
question. I told him about the loophole that you found.

> And then he makes the determinatiom of whether a question is "Objective"
> or "Subjective" NOT based on the actual meaning of the words, but makes
> any question that can not be computed as "Subjective".
>

His stipulative definition makes perfect sense as a stipulative definition.

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes
of argument or discussion in a given context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

> This is just FALSE.
>
>>
>> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
>> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
>> 13 Nov 2014
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
>> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
>
> WHich just shows that he doesn't understand what a Compuation IS in
> computation theory. It is BY DEFINITION, a finite deterministic
> algorithm applied to a defined input.
>
> As such, an "function" that depends on things not considered "input" is
> not a computation.
>

Not at all. He like I and the other two professors understand
that when D calls H(D,D) then the halting problem specifies an
inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification
All three authors seems to agree on this.

> Yes, in a non-Turing system, it is possible to define things that might
> be called "functions" that are dependent on things besides their formal
> parameters.
>
> If you look at his examples, this is EXACTLY what his "CDFS" do.
>
> Such functions can NOT be converted into Turing Machines.
>

I already proved otherwise when we apply embedded_H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

> So, his arguement is outside the domains of "Compuation Theory".
>

The fact that embedded_H is applied to its own code DOES CHANGE THINGS.
This cannot be correctly ignored.

>>
>> [3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>>
>
> Here, the author says that
>
> S defined as If H(S) then Loop else end.
>
> "Can't be implemented", and the reasoning is that since H can't be made,
> the problem is with S (and not the unimplementability of Halting
> Detection).
>

Yes Professor Stoddart did not see that his own criterion measure could
be used as a halting criterion measure. He did see that it could be
used to report bad input.

"Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
invoked from within S1"

> He says:
>
> There is no reason, however, why the halt test cannot terminate in other
> situations, or why failure to halt cannot be reported via an error
> message when the halt test itself cannot halt.
>

Yes I just said that second part.

> Except that to do so violates the definition of a Decider, being a
> program that ALWAYS delivers its answer to its caller/use.
>

Hence my independently derived enhancement to my independently derived
"Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
invoked from within S1"

> And again, he ignores that the DEFINITION of the sort of thing that H is
> required to be, a COMPUTATION, by DEFINITION is only a function of its
> formal parameters, and thus when he talks about H determining if it is
> being called by S just invalidates his argument.
>

His work is preliminary compared to mine.

> So, the common thread in all these papers, as well as your own, is that
> they are ignoring the actual definition of what a Compuation (commonly
> called a "Program" in lay terms) actually is, and thus show that they
> are NOT actually working on the Halting Problem of Compuation Theory.
>

The key common thread is that the halting problem has
an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification.

> Yes, my guess is a lot of people have similar misunderstandings, but
> that doesn't make them right.
>

Since I know these things first-hand I know that they are correct.

> You are just putting you lot with people who have shown that they don't
> know what they are talking about as far as the requirements of
> Computation Theory.
>
> They all refer to being "equivalent" to Turing Machines, but all the
> "programs" they propose can not be converted to Turing Machines as they
> all need "secret" inputs which just do not exist with a Turing machine.
> That is one of the powers of the simple Turing Machine architecture, ANY
> Turing Machine MUST perform a computation (or be non-halting depending
> on the exact version of the definition of Computation being used) while
> many other architectures allow for hidden data paths that allow
> "programs" that fail to be compuations (but might be a piece of a large
> Computation).

On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>
>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>
>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>
>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>> incorrect question.
>>
>
> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.

Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
question because the context of who is asked the question
DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.

What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.

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

On 1/29/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>  >
>>>
>>> [1] E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> But the Halting Problem is a PURELY OBJECTIVE.
>>
>
> Professor Hehner defines what he means by his terms.

>
>> Note also, His definition of a "Program" does not match that of a
>> Turing Machine.
>>
>
> Isomorphism
>
>> For one thing, his "Halting Analyzer" is not of the same class as the
>> programs it is to decide on. He limits its inputs to "L-Programs" that
>> can have no inputs, but it itself has an input.
>>
>
> That is a mere simplification that changes nothing.
> https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
> Professor C. Strachey does the same thing.
>
>> So, his "answer" to the Halting Problem is to just restrict the inputs
>> to machines lesser than the deciders, an well known answer.
>>
>
> The key portion of his answered is anchored in Carol's
> question. I told him about the loophole that you found.
>
>> And then he makes the determinatiom of whether a question is
>> "Objective" or "Subjective" NOT based on the actual meaning of the
>> words, but makes any question that can not be computed as "Subjective".
>>
>
> His stipulative definition makes perfect sense as a stipulative definition.
>
> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
> currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes
> of argument or discussion in a given context.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>
>> This is just FALSE.
>>
>>>
>>> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
>>> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
>>> 13 Nov 2014
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
>>> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
>>
>> WHich just shows that he doesn't understand what a Compuation IS in
>> computation theory. It is BY DEFINITION, a finite deterministic
>> algorithm applied to a defined input.
>>
>> As such, an "function" that depends on things not considered "input"
>> is not a computation.
>>
>
> Not at all. He like I and the other two professors understand
> that when D calls H(D,D) then the halting problem specifies an
> inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification
> All three authors seems to agree on this.
>
>> Yes, in a non-Turing system, it is possible to define things that
>> might be called "functions" that are dependent on things besides their
>> formal parameters.
>>
>> If you look at his examples, this is EXACTLY what his "CDFS" do.
>>
>> Such functions can NOT be converted into Turing Machines.
>>
>
> I already proved otherwise when we apply embedded_H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
>> So, his arguement is outside the domains of "Compuation Theory".
>>
>
> The fact that embedded_H is applied to its own code DOES CHANGE THINGS.
> This cannot be correctly ignored.
>
>>>
>>> [3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>> 20 December 2017
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here, the author says that
>>
>> S defined as If H(S) then Loop else end.
>>
>> "Can't be implemented", and the reasoning is that since H can't be
>> made, the problem is with S (and not the unimplementability of Halting
>> Detection).
>>
>
> Yes Professor Stoddart did not see that his own criterion measure could
> be used as a halting criterion measure. He did see that it could be
> used to report bad input.
>
> "Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
> invoked from within S1"
>
>> He says:
>>
>> There is no reason, however, why the halt test cannot terminate in
>> other situations, or why failure to halt cannot be reported via an
>> error message when the halt test itself cannot halt.
>>
>
> Yes I just said that second part.
>
>> Except that to do so violates the definition of a Decider, being a
>> program that ALWAYS delivers its answer to its caller/use.
>>
>
> Hence my independently derived enhancement to my independently derived
> "Implementation of H1 requires it to determine whether it is being
> invoked from within S1"
>
>> And again, he ignores that the DEFINITION of the sort of thing that H
>> is required to be, a COMPUTATION, by DEFINITION is only a function of
>> its formal parameters, and thus when he talks about H determining if
>> it is being called by S just invalidates his argument.
>>
>
> His work is preliminary compared to mine.
>
>> So, the common thread in all these papers, as well as your own, is
>> that they are ignoring the actual definition of what a Compuation
>> (commonly called a "Program" in lay terms) actually is, and thus show
>> that they are NOT actually working on the Halting Problem of
>> Compuation Theory.
>>
>
> The key common thread is that the halting problem has
> an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification.
>
>> Yes, my guess is a lot of people have similar misunderstandings, but
>> that doesn't make them right.
>>
>
> Since I know these things first-hand I know that they are correct.
>
>> You are just putting you lot with people who have shown that they
>> don't know what they are talking about as far as the requirements of
>> Computation Theory.
>>
>> They all refer to being "equivalent" to Turing Machines, but all the
>> "programs" they propose can not be converted to Turing Machines as
>> they all need "secret" inputs which just do not exist with a Turing
>> machine. That is one of the powers of the simple Turing Machine
>> architecture, ANY Turing Machine MUST perform a computation (or be
>> non-halting depending on the exact version of the definition of
>> Computation being used) while many other architectures allow for
>> hidden data paths that allow "programs" that fail to be compuations
>> (but might be a piece of a large Computation).
>
> Some of their ideas may not be Turing computable yet all of their
> ideas do unify around:
>
> The halting problem has an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification.
> AKA the same ill-formed question that I claimed back in 2004.
>
> 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>
>
> Hehner's Carol's question does a great job of elaborating this.
>
>

On 1/29/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 12:58 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, please show me an actual computation built by a finite sequence of
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>  >
>>>
>>> [1] E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> But the Halting Problem is a PURELY OBJECTIVE.
>>
>
> Professor Hehner defines what he means by his terms.

And the LIES by not using it (OR MISUSING IT).

>
>> Note also, His definition of a "Program" does not match that of a
>> Turing Machine.
>>
>
> Isomorphism

Only if a bummy rabbit is "Isomorphic" to an office building.

You are just proving you don't know what ANY of these things mean.

Like the joke, "I understand every language but Greek", and then when
someone ask them a quesition in Spanish, the answer is "That's Greek to
Me!".

>
>> For one thing, his "Halting Analyzer" is not of the same class as the
>> programs it is to decide on. He limits its inputs to "L-Programs" that
>> can have no inputs, but it itself has an input.
>>
>
> That is a mere simplification that changes nothing.
> https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
> Professor C. Strachey does the same thing.

Nope, He admits that an L-program decider couldn't decide on an
L-Program input, but then claims that an M-Program decider could, if
L-Programs aren't allowed to use M-Programs.

In other words, With M-Programs around, L-Programs can not be Turing
Complete.

Now, of course, he also argues that any M-Program can be converted to an
L-program (so he can claim that L-Programs are Turing Complete), so thus
the contradictory L-program CAN be built, or his claim is incorrect.

>
>> So, his "answer" to the Halting Problem is to just restrict the inputs
>> to machines lesser than the deciders, an well known answer.
>>
>
> The key portion of his answered is anchored in Carol's
> question. I told him about the loophole that you found.

Except that the issue with "Carol's Question" doesn't apply to question
put to Machines, as the machine is deterministic.

>
>> And then he makes the determinatiom of whether a question is
>> "Objective" or "Subjective" NOT based on the actual meaning of the
>> words, but makes any question that can not be computed as "Subjective".
>>
>
> His stipulative definition makes perfect sense as a stipulative definition.

but violates his previous definition.

>
> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
> currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes
> of argument or discussion in a given context.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

Right, and when you do that, you disconnect your argument from all other
meanings of the word, and thus, can no longer claim that because he
found the question to be stipulated-subjective that it must be invalide
as questions need to be objective and not subjective because his
stipulted-subjective definition includes some actually objective questions.

Thus, his arguement is a LIE.

>
>> This is just FALSE.
>>
>>>
>>> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
>>> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
>>> 13 Nov 2014
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
>>> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
>> because the question is stipulatd -subjective it can't be correcgt,
>> WHich just shows that he doesn't understand what a Compuation IS in
>> computation theory. It is BY DEFINITION, a finite deterministic
>> algorithm applied to a defined input.
>>
>> As such, an "function" that depends on things not considered "input"
>> is not a computation.
>>
>
> Not at all. He like I and the other two professors understand
> that when D calls H(D,D) then the halting problem specifies an
> inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification
> All three authors seems to agree on this.

What is inconsistant about the specification?

What is wrong with it being unsatisfiable, which just means the answer
can't be computed by a machine for all possible inputs (but the correct
answer DOES exist).

All three make the same mistake of forgetting what a COMPUTATION is.

>
>> Yes, in a non-Turing system, it is possible to define things that
>> might be called "functions" that are dependent on things besides their
>> formal parameters.
>>
>> If you look at his examples, this is EXACTLY what his "CDFS" do.
>>
>> Such functions can NOT be converted into Turing Machines.
>>
>
> I already proved otherwise when we apply embedded_H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Nope.

YOu have CLAIMED it. you have never PROVED it,

Show the ACTUAL TURING MACHINE that did it!!!

(of course you can't, you failed at writing even a simple turing machine
decider)

>
>> So, his arguement is outside the domains of "Compuation Theory".
>>
>
> The fact that embedded_H is applied to its own code DOES CHANGE THINGS.
> This cannot be correctly ignored.

Nope.

Show an actual example.

On 1/29/24 9:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>>
>>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>> incorrect question.
>>>
>>
>> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
>> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.
>
> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
> question because the context of who is asked the question
> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.

Why is it different?

WHy does the behavior of D change because we ask H about it, since that
H was fully defined before D was created?

(It had to be, due to causality)

>
> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>
>

That is NOT the question, just your POOP.

The real questions we can ask are:

1) What Answer DOES H produce when asked H(D,D) ?

(This answer was FIXED when H was created, and is unchanging, your
claimed machine returns non-halting)

2) What is the Behavior of the machine descirbed by the input?

(In this case D(D), where, to be the proof case, D was built from the H
created before question 1, which you claim "correctly" returns
non-halting, so by the definition of D's operation, it WILL get that
answer from its copy of H and Halt)

3) Do these answers agree?

(Since non-halting is not the same as Halting, they do not, so H was
incorrect).

You can not ask what correct answer does H return, as if H doesn't
return that correct answer, the question is incorrect.

On 1/29/2024 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/29/24 9:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>>>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
>>> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.
>>
>> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
>> question because the context of who is asked the question
>> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.
>
> Why is it different?
>
> WHy does the behavior of D change because we ask H about it, since that
> H was fully defined before D was created?
>
> (It had to be, due to causality)
>
>>
>> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>>
>>
>
> That is NOT the question, just your POOP.

That *IS* the question as long as you are not too ignorant
to understand that the context of who is asked a question
*DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION*

The key example of this is: Are you a little girl?

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

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:53:23 -0600, olcott wrote:

> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
> incorrect question.

Can you prove that?

On 1/29/2024 11:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:53:23 -0600, olcott wrote:
>
>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>> incorrect question.
>
> Can you prove that?

I created the notion of an incorrect question back in 2015.
(and in 2004)

*The logical law of polar questions*
*Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM*

When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.

All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)
have exactly one answer from the following:
1) No
2) Yes
3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions

As far as I know I am the original discoverer of the
above logical law, thus copyright 2015 by Peter Olcott.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

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

On 1/29/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 9:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>>>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>>>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>>>>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
>>>> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.
>>>
>>> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
>>> question because the context of who is asked the question
>>> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.
>>
>> Why is it different?
>>
>> WHy does the behavior of D change because we ask H about it, since
>> that H was fully defined before D was created?
>>
>> (It had to be, due to causality)
>>
>>>
>>> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is NOT the question, just your POOP.
>
> That *IS* the question as long as you are not too ignorant
> to understand that the context of who is asked a question
> *DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION*
>
> The key example of this is: Are you a little girl?
>

Who you ask the question to ony matters if the question pertains to you.

The Halting problem does not refer to the decider at all.

You are INCORRECTLY changing an purely objective question, whose answer
is independent of who you ask, into an attempted subjective question
asking about the what the decider could do.

You then need to change the actual problem to an improper version, where
the input, rather than being a FIXED string (which means D is built on
exactly one particular H) to a template built on what ever decider tries
to answer it,

You need to do this because the question doesn't make sense if you
don't. If H has already been programmed to do what it will do, you can't
ask what can it do to be correct, only is it correct, as its behavior
has been fixed in its creation.

Thus, you are just showing fundamental problems with you definitions.

On 1/30/24 03:17, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim that the
>>>>> halting problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t matter how you phrase it, the fact remains that there is no
>>>> logically self-consistent answer to the problem. That’s what Turing
>>>> proved, and you have done nothing to change that.
>>>
>>> Likewise there is no logically consistent answer to this question:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true"?
>>> It is undecidable because the question itself is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Every yes/no question defined to have no correct yes/no answer is an
>>> incorrect question.
>>>
>>
>> And the question, "Does the Computation defined by this input Halt?"
>> always has a correct yes/no answer, so is a CORRECT question.
>
> Yet when H is asked this question it is an entirely different
> question

Wrong

> because the context of who is asked the question
> DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION.

Wrong in mathematics

>
> What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns?" has no correct answer.
>

That is the POOP problem, not the halting problem. We are talking about
the halting problem, which asks whether a Turing machine/input pair has
an execution sequence that is infinite.