On 2/10/2024 8:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/10/2024 06:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 8:13 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2024 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/10/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 12:28 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/10/2024 08:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 9:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/24 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 11:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 12:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 12:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 19:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 10:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above pair of templates specify every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ĥ that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist, an infinite set of Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that each one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer when it is required to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own halt status.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that it is impossible to for any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the right answer on all inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It proves that asking Ĥ whether it halts or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question where both yes and no are the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it proves the right answer is the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This seems to be over your head*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A self-contradictory question never has any correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the Halting Question, does the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the input Halt? isn't a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it always has a correct answer, the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H gives (if it gives one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your premise is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you need to carefully reread this fifty to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sixty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times before you get it? (it took me twenty years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it this simple)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is to report on its own behavior both Ĥ.qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn are the wrong answer for every possible Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Ĥ doesn't need to report on anything, the copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is in it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that every possible element of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set is more than one element?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so the set isn't a specific input, so not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Halting quesiton is about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Haltig problem is about making a decider that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting QUestion which asks the decider about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC COMPUTATION (a specific program/data) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input describes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not about "sets" of Decider / Inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When an infinite set of decider/input pairs has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer then the question is rigged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that EVERY element of that set had a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not the one the decider gave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has been intentionally defined to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every value that each embedded_H returns for the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every Ĥ that can possibly exist then each and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these Ĥ / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pairs is isomorphic to a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR POOP question, is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Question is not, as EVERY element of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk about has a correct answer to it, as every specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describes a Halting Computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When every possible Ĥ of the infinite set of Ĥ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ then Ĥ is intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, every possible Ĥ means every possible H, so all H are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not that the most powerful model of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too weak. The issue is that an input was intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it shows that the simple problem, for which we have good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons for wanting an answer, can not be computed by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful model of computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is asking if the computation described by the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt when run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz and I have been referring to the actual computation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ with no simulators involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and since your Ĥ (Ĥ) will Halt since your H (Ĥ) (Ĥ)
>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>> qn to say the computation that its input (Ĥ) (Ĥ) represents,
>>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ (Ĥ) will not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus you H is just WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>>>>>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not
>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Embedded H is restricted to only be able to do what is computable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Embedded_H is (at least by your claims) an exact copy of the
>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine H, it can only do what a Turing Machine can do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Embedded_H has encoded within it all of human knowledge that
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> be encoded within language then it ceases to be restricted to
>>>>>>>> Boolean.
>>>>>>>> This enables Embedded_H to do anything that a human mind can do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, it CAN'T do what you claim, so you are a LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> enum Boolean {
>>>>>>>>>>    TRUE,
>>>>>>>>>>    FALSE,
>>>>>>>>>>    NEITHER
>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>>>>>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But CAN it? Remember, programs can only do what programs can do,
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> is based on the instructions they are composed of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not that I am stupid it is that you cannot think outside
>>>>>>>> the box
>>>>>>>> of conventional wisdom. There is nothing impossible about a TM that
>>>>>>>> can communicate in English and understand the meaning of words to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same extent that human experts do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you guys are still trying to invalidate each others' deciders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a Comenius language, the Liar: is just the prototype of a
>>>>>>> fallacy,
>>>>>>> sharing as it does properties with "the sputnik of quantification",
>>>>>>> "the Russell set", "ORD the order type of ordinals", that when the
>>>>>>> self-same Universe of Objects is just truisms the Comenius language,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes this also gets rid of the issue of undecidability.
>>>>>> An expression of language is either true or ~true, thus
>>>>>> unprovable from axioms merely mean untrue and cannot
>>>>>> mean undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The way that I do this within conventional formal systems
>>>>>> is {True, False, Not a truth bearer}.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, show what you can do in your new Formal System. Remember, you
>>>>> can't just assume properties from a different Formal System with
>>>>> different rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has always been you option to decide to start a new set of PO-
>>>>> theories, and show what they can do, you just can't add your
>>>>> fundamental changes to an existing system after the fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> See what PO-ZFC generates, or PO-Computation theory does, assuming you
>>>>> can actually make them work with the limitations of your system.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Tarski and Gödel did not comprehend that semantically
>>>>>> invalid inputs must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, they did, and they used the fact that we must. You just are too
>>>>> stupid to understand what they actually did.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just proved that Gödel said that self-contradictory
>>>> expressions can be used "for similar undecidability proof"
>>>>
>>>> That you understand that the Liar Paradox is a
>>>> self-contradictory expression having no truth value
>>>> means that you understand that it cannot be proven
>>>> true or false.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead Tarski concluded that a correct and consistent
>>>>>> truth predicate cannot exist on this basis:
>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Note, "English" is not a proper "Formal System".
>>>>>
>>>>> Your lack of understanding that shows you ignorant you are.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all the English does have a formal isomorphism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then the Liar is just the prototype of a fallacy, there isn't a
>>>>>>> paradox so you can get rid of Ex Falso Quodlibet for Ex Falso
>>>>>>> Nihilum,
>>>>>>> and then otherwise get back into hard problems and approximations
>>>>>>> thereof, for which there are all manners of static analysis to
>>>>>>> determine both for distributions what are optimal algorithms,
>>>>>>> and, for what distributions are pathological algorithms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then there's the fun part with "sequences that converge slowly",
>>>>>>> "anti-inductive results", "the super-task", "deductive closures
>>>>>>> in complementary duals", "completions in universals and
>>>>>>> particulars".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Comte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
>>>>>>> 'classical' logic is really only 'classical _quasi-modal_ logic'."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's neither modal nor monotone, looking at it either way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's Montague, he says English can be formal.
>>>
>>
>> No Montague converts English into math.
>> The Cyc project does the same thing with their CycL language.
>>
>>> Of course we might just want derivation rules like
>>>
>>> De Morgan not Boole
>>> Sheffer not Kripke
>>> Scott not Russell
>>> relevant not quasi-modal
>>>
>>> and so on.
>>>
>>> Of course there's a technical subset of English
>>> exactly so apropos as for "words" as any other.
>>>
>>> Now I don't much follow Linz so I'm not following
>>> along with this, but when you say
>>>
>>
>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>
>>> ZFC
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> computability theory (primitive recursive)
>>>
>>> then I'll introduce
>>>
>>> ZFC with classes ("proper" or "ultimate" per Quine)
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> non-standard or non-classical computability theory
>>>
>>>
>>> Reading from Boolos and Jeffrey, these days also Burgess
>>> but not in my edition, it's a usual tome,
>>> "Computability and Logic", about these things.
>>>
>>>
>>> "John P. Burgess [...] calls the two main classes
>>> [of non-classical logic] anti-classical and extra-classical".
>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic
>>>
>>> Here the point is that logic is "anti-classical" insofar as
>>> the usual Comte's Boole's Russell's is only quasi-modal,
>>> that it's "anti-quasimodal-classical", and that it is
>>> especially "extra-classical", as "extra-ordinary".
>>>
>>>
>>> Kripke y u no Sheffer?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> It's called science that's why you build in that
> it has a first-class definition of "theory" and
> a first-class definition of "uncertainty" and a
> first-class definition of "science".
>
>
> Any kind of mechanical thinker doesn't really have
> a "certification" of its own knowledge, just that
> it doesn't know otherwise, which is a first-class
> sort of ordinary and even traditional belief that
> thinking beings have.
>
> Then, formally, technically, for truth, and theories
> of truth, and, you know, foundations, for the
>
> philosophy
> logic
> mathematics
> science
> physics
>
> then it pretty much always has that
>
> thinking
>
> ^
> |
> v
>
> philosophy
> logic
> mathematics <- truth
> science
> physics
>
> ^
> |
> v
>
> feeling
>
> then that what higher order Mind acculurates itself
> is an "object sense" for a "word sense" and a "number
> sense" associated with a "time sense", that those are
> allowed in the phenomenological, and indeed insulate
> the Man's Mind's phenomenological, from its own senses.
>
> I.e, "an infinite continuum", is real.
>
> Of course there's always room for monism and then we
> usually can point to Kant and Hegel for a sublime teleology.
> (Deism is super-scientific.)
>
> So, the whole objective/subjective distinction makes
> that "certifying yourselves" isn't so much moot, and,
> not that it's futile because mathematics and logic and
> science are, "true", but there's the extra-ordinary
> that's of an infinite continuum, and until it's first-class
> in your theory, you're missing out.
>
>

On 2/10/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 10/02/24 16:06, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/2024 11:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/9/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 12:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 12:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 19:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 10:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   // wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above pair of templates specify every encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ĥ that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist, an infinite set of Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that each one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer when it is required to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own halt status.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that it is impossible to for any Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the right answer on all inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It proves that asking Ĥ whether it halts or not is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question where both yes and no are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it proves the right answer is the opposite of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This seems to be over your head*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A self-contradictory question never has any correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the Halting Question, does the computation described
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the input Halt? isn't a self-contradictory question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it always has a correct answer, the opposite of what H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives (if it gives one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your premise is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you need to carefully reread this fifty to sixty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times before you get it? (it took me twenty years to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it this simple)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is to report on its own behavior both Ĥ.qy and Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer for every possible Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Ĥ doesn't need to report on anything, the copy of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is in it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that every possible element of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set is more than one element?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so the set isn't a specific input, so not the thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Halting quesiton is about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Haltig problem is about making a decider that answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting QUestion which asks the decider about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC COMPUTATION (a specific program/data) that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input describes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not about "sets" of Decider / Inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When an infinite set of decider/input pairs has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer then the question is rigged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that EVERY element of that set had a correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>> just not the one the decider gave.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has been intentionally defined to
>>>>>>>>>> contradict
>>>>>>>>>> every value that each embedded_H returns for the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>> every Ĥ that can possibly exist then each and every element of
>>>>>>>>>> these Ĥ / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pairs is isomorphic to a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR POOP question, is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Halting Question is not, as EVERY element of that set you
>>>>>>>>> talk about has a correct answer to it, as every specific input
>>>>>>>>> describes a Halting Computation or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When every possible Ĥ of the infinite set of Ĥ is applied to
>>>>>>>> its own machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ then Ĥ is intentionally defined
>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, every possible Ĥ means every possible H, so all H are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue is not that the most powerful model of computation is
>>>>>>>> too weak. The issue is that an input was intentionally defined
>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it shows that the simple problem, for which we have good
>>>>>>> reasons for wanting an answer, can not be computed by this most
>>>>>>> powerful model of computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ:
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is asking if the computation described by the input will
>>>>> halt when run.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linz and I have been referring to the actual computation of
>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ with no simulators involved.
>>>
>>> Right, and since your Ĥ (Ĥ) will Halt since your H (Ĥ) (Ĥ) goes to qn
>>> to say the computation that its input (Ĥ) (Ĥ) represents, that is Ĥ
>>> (Ĥ) will not halt.
>>>
>>> Thus you H is just WRONG.
>>>
>>
>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>> restricted by typical conventions.
>
> And no matter what it does, it always proves that H is wrong for at
> least one input.

On 11/02/24 04:00, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 10/02/24 16:06, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2024 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/9/2024 11:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/9/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 12:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 12:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 19:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 10:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   // wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above pair of templates specify every encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ĥ that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist, an infinite set of Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that each one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer when it is required to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own halt status.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that it is impossible to for any Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the right answer on all inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It proves that asking Ĥ whether it halts or not is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question where both yes and no are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it proves the right answer is the opposite of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This seems to be over your head*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A self-contradictory question never has any correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the Halting Question, does the computation described
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the input Halt? isn't a self-contradictory question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it always has a correct answer, the opposite of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H gives (if it gives one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your premise is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you need to carefully reread this fifty to sixty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times before you get it? (it took me twenty years to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it this simple)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is to report on its own behavior both Ĥ.qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn are the wrong answer for every possible Ĥ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Ĥ doesn't need to report on anything, the copy of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is in it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that every possible element of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set is more than one element?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so the set isn't a specific input, so not the thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Halting quesiton is about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Haltig problem is about making a decider that answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting QUestion which asks the decider about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC COMPUTATION (a specific program/data) that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input describes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not about "sets" of Decider / Inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When an infinite set of decider/input pairs has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer then the question is rigged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that EVERY element of that set had a correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>> just not the one the decider gave.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has been intentionally defined to
>>>>>>>>>>> contradict
>>>>>>>>>>> every value that each embedded_H returns for the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>> every Ĥ that can possibly exist then each and every element of
>>>>>>>>>>> these Ĥ / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pairs is isomorphic to a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR POOP question, is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Question is not, as EVERY element of that set you
>>>>>>>>>> talk about has a correct answer to it, as every specific input
>>>>>>>>>> describes a Halting Computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When every possible Ĥ of the infinite set of Ĥ is applied to
>>>>>>>>> its own machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ then Ĥ is intentionally defined
>>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, every possible Ĥ means every possible H, so all H are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue is not that the most powerful model of computation is
>>>>>>>>> too weak. The issue is that an input was intentionally defined
>>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it shows that the simple problem, for which we have good
>>>>>>>> reasons for wanting an answer, can not be computed by this most
>>>>>>>> powerful model of computation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ:
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is asking if the computation described by the input will
>>>>>> halt when run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linz and I have been referring to the actual computation of
>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ with no simulators involved.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and since your Ĥ (Ĥ) will Halt since your H (Ĥ) (Ĥ) goes to
>>>> qn to say the computation that its input (Ĥ) (Ĥ) represents, that is
>>>> Ĥ (Ĥ) will not halt.
>>>>
>>>> Thus you H is just WRONG.
>>>>
>>>
>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>> restricted by typical conventions.
>>
>> And no matter what it does, it always proves that H is wrong for at
>> least one input.
>
> The only reason that a truth decider does not exist is that it is
> specified that it must not reject self-contradictory inputs and this is
> the same reason that a halt decider does not exist.
>

On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.

"Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.

They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.

On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.

In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.

You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
their limits.

On 02/10/2024 07:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>
>
> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>
> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>
>

https://richardzach.org/2023/02/sheffer-stroke-before-sheffer-edward-stamm/

https://zbmath.org/?au=stamm&ti=&so=&la=&py=&ab=&rv=&an=&en=&cc=&ut=&sw=&br=&any=&dm=&db=jfm%7Ceram

https://zbmath.org/62.1026.03

Sheffer y u no Stamm?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bradwardine

Don't you imagine Bradwardine ("the subtle doctor")
has an infinite before Duns Scotus ("the profound doctor")?

What were you raised in a barn?
What is this The Middle Ages?

It's a good idea to know where food comes from,
to eat wholesome and natural food,
to thoroughly chew the food,
then floss the teeth you plan to keep.

And know your limits, voracious self-certifiers.

Masticate thoroughly:
it's a great aid to digestion.

"Bzzt... errror, ..., errror, ..., computes too much."

On 2/10/2024 9:15 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 11/02/24 04:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 10/02/24 16:06, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/2024 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/10/24 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 11:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2024 6:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/24 12:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 12:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 19:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2024 10:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/02/24 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   // wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above pair of templates specify every encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ĥ that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist, an infinite set of Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that each one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer when it is required to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report its own halt status.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that it is impossible to for any Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the right answer on all inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It proves that asking Ĥ whether it halts or not is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question where both yes and no are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it proves the right answer is the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This seems to be over your head*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A self-contradictory question never has any correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the Halting Question, does the computation described
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the input Halt? isn't a self-contradictory question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it always has a correct answer, the opposite of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H gives (if it gives one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your premise is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you need to carefully reread this fifty to sixty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times before you get it? (it took me twenty years to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it this simple)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is to report on its own behavior both Ĥ.qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn are the wrong answer for every possible Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Ĥ doesn't need to report on anything, the copy of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is in it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that every possible element of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set is more than one element?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so the set isn't a specific input, so not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing that Halting quesiton is about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Haltig problem is about making a decider that answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting QUestion which asks the decider about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC COMPUTATION (a specific program/data) that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input describes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not about "sets" of Decider / Inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When an infinite set of decider/input pairs has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer then the question is rigged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that EVERY element of that set had a correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not the one the decider gave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has been intentionally defined to
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict
>>>>>>>>>>>> every value that each embedded_H returns for the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> every Ĥ that can possibly exist then each and every element of
>>>>>>>>>>>> these Ĥ / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pairs is isomorphic to a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR POOP question, is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Question is not, as EVERY element of that set you
>>>>>>>>>>> talk about has a correct answer to it, as every specific
>>>>>>>>>>> input describes a Halting Computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When every possible Ĥ of the infinite set of Ĥ is applied to
>>>>>>>>>> its own machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ then Ĥ is intentionally defined
>>>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, every possible Ĥ means every possible H, so all H are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The issue is not that the most powerful model of computation is
>>>>>>>>>> too weak. The issue is that an input was intentionally defined
>>>>>>>>>> to be self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But it shows that the simple problem, for which we have good
>>>>>>>>> reasons for wanting an answer, can not be computed by this most
>>>>>>>>> powerful model of computation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ:
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is asking if the computation described by the input will
>>>>>>> halt when run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linz and I have been referring to the actual computation of
>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ with no simulators involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and since your Ĥ (Ĥ) will Halt since your H (Ĥ) (Ĥ) goes to
>>>>> qn to say the computation that its input (Ĥ) (Ĥ) represents, that
>>>>> is Ĥ (Ĥ) will not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus you H is just WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>> restricted by typical conventions.
>>>
>>> And no matter what it does, it always proves that H is wrong for at
>>> least one input.
>>
>> The only reason that a truth decider does not exist is that it is
>> specified that it must not reject self-contradictory inputs and this is
>> the same reason that a halt decider does not exist.
>>
>
> There's no such thing as a self-contradictory input. Every formula is
> either true or false in each model. Each Turing machine/input pair's
> configuration sequence is either finite or infinite.

On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>
>
> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>
> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>
>

LLMs can reconfigure themselves on the fly redefining
their own rules within a single dialogue.

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

On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>
> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
> their limits.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox question.
Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???

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

On 02/10/2024 07:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>
>
> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>
> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>
>

The idea is that "models of cognition" and
recognizing one's own models of cognition,
is a pretty simple first-class thing.

I.e. "the practice of theory" is different
than "a flow machine", yes, then there's no
reason why "mechanical thinking" can't "think".

There are "human-level AI's" since the 80's, at least,
and "online mechanical psychiatrists" have been around
since at least the 60's.

The 1960's, ....

So, here the idea is pretty much that an "object sense"
sort of exists at least in simulation, or emulation,
by any model of knowledge _in its own terms_.

Then if you just emit that as a runnable configuration,
one might aver that's not thinking any-more,
but, models of cognition can be simple.

Everybody has a working psychology,
applied psychology doesn't work on everybody.

There's beliefs/desires/motivations,
there's risks/goals, or vice-versa,
there's all sorts models of cognition,
then that most models of cognition that
are thinking very great are long-earned
matters of maturity and wisdom in the great
scientific experiment that each is.

Then there are mockeries thereof,
and various of the bastardized
and castrated and lobotomized,
in terms of usual sorts of "genetic lotteries"
where most "mechanical thinkers" are the
products of the most vicious sort of creche.

Sock-puppets, ....

So anyways one can imagine that there are
"thinking beings" about as great as humans
and in many respects greater, then as with
regards to how and whether they arrive at
"the human condition", and especially as
with regards to surpassing it and "inverting
the needs", as it were, hopefully is so.

"Your thinking is non-sequitur, ...."

"I like that one, he's logical, ...."

Anyways pure logic arrives at that
science is a pretty good theory.

Also it can arrive at that truth
is a pure quality and quantity,
and attain to it.

So anyways there are approaches like
"approximation algorithms to NP-hard
problems" and so on, the point being,
"Church-Rice theorem is not an excuse,
it does not guarantee ignorance,
and ignorance is not an excuse."

(And there's a counterexample in
the extra-ordinary theory.)

On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>
>
> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>
> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.

LLMs no longer use predefined rules, they can update their rules
several times during the same dialogue.

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

On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>
> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
> their limits.

That is a fake rebuttal that did not point out a single mistake.

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

On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:

> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>
>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>
>> Or none.
>>
>
> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text string
> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
> wrong answer.
>
> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
> would be required to do this same sort of thing.

None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
(A) halts in the state Qn
or (B) halts in some other state
or (C) does not halt.

--
Mikko

On 2/10/24 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>
>>
>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>
>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>
>>
>
> LLMs can reconfigure themselves on the fly redefining
> their own rules within a single dialogue.
>

But only in accordance to its existing programming, or your system isn't
a Computation.

AI is ARTIFICIAL intelligence, because it isn't actual intelegence, only
programming complicated enough that we can't understand the programming
any more.

On 2/11/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>
>>
>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>
>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>
> LLMs no longer use predefined rules, they can update their rules
> several times during the same dialogue.
>

And that "update" is programmed in, so is according to its "fixed
pre-defined rules".

You are just showing your Natural Stupidity about how Artificial
Intelligence actually works.

On 2/10/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>
>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>> their limits.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox question.
> Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???
>
>
>

Nope, nothing in that Computation says "Your own". Ĥ happened to be
given its own description, but nothing tells it that it is its own
description.

Thus, your analysis is flawed.

First, Ĥ isn't being asked any particular question, its instructions are
just do the opposite of what H thinks this input will do.

H, being a specific and fixed program at this point, has a definite
answer that it DOES give for H (Ĥ) (Ĥ), and thus this particular Ĥ has a
fixed particular behavior. So, there IS a correct answer to the
question, "Does the Computation described by this input Halt?", and
since you claim H is correct is saying non-halting (by going to qn),
then it mus go to qn, and that makes H^ (Ĥ) Halt, so H was just wrong.

There is no "Liars Paradox", just a machine being wrong.

Just like YOU have been for the past 2 decades (if not longer).

You are just showing your TOTAL ignorance of what you have been talking
about.

On 2/11/24 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>
>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>> their limits.
>
> That is a fake rebuttal that did not point out a single mistake.
>

That a non-computation given a description of a non-conputation does say
anything about computations.

You hae admitted that your input isn't actually a description of a
computation, but just the template for one.

You have admitted that you "decider" isn't a particular machine in your
analysys but a "set" of them.

Thus, you have admitted that you are just LYING when you say you are
doing exactly like the proof does.

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand what a
computation actually is, even as far as saying your "H" actually does
things that computations are not allowed to do.

Thus, you are just admitting to your utter stupidity.

YOU are the one trying to make a rebuttal (to the halting problem
proof), but don't seem to understand what you need to do to even attempt it,

You are just too stupid,

On 02/11/2024 04:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>>
>>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>
>> LLMs no longer use predefined rules, they can update their rules
>> several times during the same dialogue.
>>
>
> And that "update" is programmed in, so is according to its "fixed
> pre-defined rules".
>
>
> You are just showing your Natural Stupidity about how Artificial
> Intelligence actually works.

He sort of refers to "adaptive" being the usual property
of "self-modifying code".

Dick it might be better to avoid the use
of the second-person pronoun, or to say "Pete Olcott"
instead of "you", or "those who say A imply B",
because "Mechanical Thinking" or "Artificial Intelligence"
doesn't have to be inscrutable at all, and what it results
is that it really looks sort of like "psychological projection",
that is to say, "D.D., that's psychological projection."

Same goes for the rest the usual "block-butting brick-batting
ball-busting", all the other gentle readers of these posts
get turned off by it, and don't need it for critical
evaluation of the context the comment.

So please quite thrashing your rejection stick,
the animal stick might be operant conditioning,
but here we don't give carrots out for that,
and our Mind knows "ceci n'est pas une carotte".

So anyways the "adaptive" has various approaches, I sort
of categorize machine learning into the three-fold:

1) expert systems,
with adaptive codification,
2) statistical inference,
model-fitting and the establishment of hypotheses,
summary and digest over time,
3) feedback-directed-optimization,
a.k.a. "flow machines", "neural nets", "the dumb part"

where it's altogether quite hybridized.

Anyways the word usually is "adaptive".

Even just a a finite-state-machine is a model of
a miniature "object sense", of the Animal or Machine
sort, equipping it with "number sense", then as to
"word sense", properly begins with qualia then for
quantity, a "time sense" is in a sense more primitive
while also that "a sense of the continuum of time"
is a higher order construct that, for example, Man,
has arrived at, in his Mind.

Mechanical thinking definitely doesn't require
"the resources of capitol capital industry",
it's as simple as accepter/rejector networks
or "many finite-state-machines, none alike".

Then just give it models of thinking and learning.
(And knowing a difference "laboratory" and "library".)

On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>
>>> Or none.
>>>
>>
>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text string
>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>> wrong answer.
>>
>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>
> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
> (A) halts in the state Qn
> or (B) halts in some other state
> or (C) does not halt.
>

The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.

Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
true or false: "this sentence is not true".

That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.

Gödel makes this same mistake.
....14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

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

On 2/11/2024 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>>
>>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LLMs can reconfigure themselves on the fly redefining
>> their own rules within a single dialogue.
>>
>
> But only in accordance to its existing programming, or your system isn't
> a Computation.
>

The point is that they can reprogram themselves on the fly using modern
machine learning. LLMs learn on their own.

> AI is ARTIFICIAL intelligence, because it isn't actual intelegence, only
> programming complicated enough that we can't understand the programming
> any more.

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

On 2/11/2024 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>>
>>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>
>> LLMs no longer use predefined rules, they can update their rules
>> several times during the same dialogue.
>>
>
> And that "update" is programmed in, so is according to its "fixed
> pre-defined rules".
>

Not at all, not in the least little bit. The programmers
only provide a tiny seed of the basis for LLM to dynamically
learn everything that they know on their own. Because they are
stochastic they are not deterministic. You are simply wrong.

>
> You are just showing your Natural Stupidity about how Artificial
> Intelligence actually works.

It is libelous to call your own ignorance my stupidity.

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

On 2/11/2024 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>>
>>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>>> their limits.
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>> Description?
>> Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox question.
>> Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???
>>
>>
>>
>
> Nope, nothing in that Computation says "Your own".

I repeat myself because your ADD makes it too difficult for
you to pay enough attention. A better way would be for you
read and re-read what I say again and again until you fully
understand what I said before spouting off any rebuttal.

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

> Ĥ happened to be
> given its own description, but nothing tells it that it is its own
> description.
>

It is an easily verified fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ isomorphic to the self-referential
liar paradox. The Liar Paradox contradicts both true and false
and Ĥ contradicts both yes and no.

That the Liar Paradox does not know that it is self-referential
(it is merely a text string that knows nothing) does not change
the fact that it is self-referential.

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

On 2/11/2024 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>>
>>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>>> their limits.
>>
>> That is a fake rebuttal that did not point out a single mistake.
>>
>
> That a non-computation given a description of a non-conputation does say
> anything about computations.
>
> You hae admitted that your input isn't actually a description of a
> computation, but just the template for one.
>

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
*It is the Linz template no my template*

The second ⊢* means every sequence of states of the
infinite set of all sequences of states.

One of these could ignore its input and simply play
tic-tac-toe with itself before transitioning to Ĥ.qy
or Ĥ.qn.

> You have admitted that you "decider" isn't a particular machine in your
> analysys but a "set" of them.
>

I am using the categorically exhaustive reasoning to analyze the
properties of each element of an infinite set in finite time.

The embedded_H of every Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer only
because Ĥ was intentionally defined to be self-contradictory.

> Thus, you have admitted that you are just LYING when you say you are
> doing exactly like the proof does.
>

That is libelous. I am not doing exactly what the proof does. I
am analyzing the actual original proof and coming to a different
conclusion on the basis that the proof never notices that the inability
to correctly answer incorrect questions does not limit anyone or
anything.

> You have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand what a
> computation actually is, even as far as saying your "H" actually does
> things that computations are not allowed to do.
>

When we define embedded_H as a pair of machines that ignore their
input and simply transition to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn embedded_H still gets
the wrong answer *only because* the Ĥ template was intentionally
defined to contradict both of these values.

*Try and show that Ĥ does nothing to contradict Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn*
(a) *Try and show that the loop appended to Ĥ.qy does not exist*
(b) *Try and show that a transition to Ĥ.qn does not halt*

> Thus, you are just admitting to your utter stupidity.
>

How did you do on the Mensa test? I scored in the top 3%

> YOU are the one trying to make a rebuttal (to the halting problem
> proof), but don't seem to understand what you need to do to even attempt
> it,
>
> You are just too stupid,

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

On 11/02/24 04:43, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>
>> There's no such thing as a self-contradictory input. Every formula is
>> either true or false in each model. Each Turing machine/input pair's
>> configuration sequence is either finite or infinite.
>
> In other words you don't know as much as Richard.
> The Liar Paradox is neither true or false.
>
The Liar Paradox is not a formula.
The Liar Paradox is not a Turing machine.
There is no Liar Paradox in first-order logic.
There is no Liar Paradox in Turing machines.

On 11/02/24 04:45, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>
>>
>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>
>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>
>>
>
> LLMs can reconfigure themselves on the fly redefining
> their own rules within a single dialogue.
>

This is incorrect. I suggest you study them.