On 2/12/2024 1:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>>>> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
>>>>> It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three
>>>>> because they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>>
>>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They don't agree with you.
>>
>> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>>
>> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
>> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
>> wrong with it.
>>
>>     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)
>>
>>
>
> If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then the
> halting problem is proven unsolvable.

It is also equally impossible to determine whether
"this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
math and computer science don't understand that this
impossibility does not limit math or computer science.

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

On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
>> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
>> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
>> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
>
> This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is anything
> wrong with the halting problem.

You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
prove that it is factual.

*Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
*wrong with the halting problem specification*

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: 2017:8)

[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 12/02/24 21:41, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
>>> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
>>> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
>>> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
>>
>> This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is
>> anything wrong with the halting problem.
>
> You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
> prove that it is factual.

You can claim that it is factual yet the actual facts prove that it is
unfactual.

> *Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
> *wrong with the halting problem specification >
> 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: 2017:8)
>

When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S is
a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
machine. There are no "hidden criteria".

On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 1:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are
>>>>>> about meanings of English words, but the halting problem is
>>>>>> mathematical. It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one
>>>>>> make three because they can go into a house, reproduce, and come
>>>>>> out as three.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>>>
>>>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They don't agree with you.
>>>
>>> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>>>
>>> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
>>> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
>>> wrong with it.
>>>
>>>     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)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then
>> the halting problem is proven unsolvable.
>
>
> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
> math and computer science don't understand that this
> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>

"This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.

On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 21:41, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
>>>> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
>>>> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
>>>> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
>>>
>>> This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is
>>> anything wrong with the halting problem.
>>
>> You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
>> prove that it is factual.
>
> You can claim that it is factual yet the actual facts prove that it is
> unfactual.
>
>> *Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
>> *wrong with the halting problem specification >
>> 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: 2017:8)
>>
>
> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S is
> a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>

The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
whether Stoddart agrees with me, that the halting problem cannot
be solved because there is something wrong with it

*inconsistencies in the specification*
says there is something wrong with it.

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

On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 1:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are
>>>>>>> about meanings of English words, but the halting problem is
>>>>>>> mathematical. It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one
>>>>>>> make three because they can go into a house, reproduce, and come
>>>>>>> out as three.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They don't agree with you.
>>>>
>>>> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>>>>
>>>> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
>>>> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
>>>> wrong with it.
>>>>
>>>>     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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then
>>> the halting problem is proven unsolvable.
>>
>>
>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>
>
> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.

"this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
incorrect notion of undecidability.

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

On 12/02/24 22:45, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S
>> is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
>> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>>
>
> The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
> whether Stoddart agrees with me,

How very self-centered of you. No matter what you think about Stoddart,
the fact remains: S is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria
for being a Turing machine. There are no "hidden criteria".

> that the halting problem cannot
> be solved because there is something wrong with it

There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except that
they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to solve them.

> *inconsistencies in the specification*
> says there is something wrong with it.

That you do not understand the halting problem does not prove there is
an inconsistency in it.

On 12/02/24 22:47, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>>
>>
>> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
>> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.
>
> "this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
> incorrect notion of undecidability.
>
"this sentence is not true" is not math.

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:

> What is the purpose of this group?
>
> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
> cranks.

As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences. (1) I
tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
form of nonsense was being espoused. (2) I stopped.

> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
> obvious?
>
> Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.

It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.

--
Ben.

On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>
>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>
>> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>> cranks.
>
> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences. (1) I
> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
> form of nonsense was being espoused. (2) I stopped.
>
>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>> obvious?
>>
>> Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>
> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>

The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

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

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

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

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

On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 22:45, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S
>>> is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
>>> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>>>
>>
>> The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
>> whether Stoddart agrees with me,
>
> How very self-centered of you. No matter what you think about Stoddart,
> the fact remains: S is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria
> for being a Turing machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>
>> that the halting problem cannot
>> be solved because there is something wrong with it
>
> There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except that
> they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to solve them.
>

According to that reasoning I can correctly determine that you
must be stupid when you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

I had forgotten that I came up with the idea
of ill-formed question all the way 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>

>> *inconsistencies in the specification*
>> says there is something wrong with it.
>
> That you do not understand the halting problem does not prove there is
> an inconsistency in it.
>

That professor Stoddart (and Hehner) agree that
it has *inconsistencies in the specification*
proves that I am not a crank.

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

On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 22:47, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>>>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>>>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>>>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
>>> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.
>>
>> "this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
>> incorrect notion of undecidability.
>>
> "this sentence is not true" is not math.

Yet this formalized version <is> the basis of Tarski's proof.

(see below for context).
*giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds*

The proof of Tarski's undefinability theorem in this form is again
by reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that an L-formula True(n)

as above existed, i.e., if A is a sentence of arithmetic, then
True(g(A)) holds in N if and only if A holds in N. Hence for all

A, the formula True(g(A)) ⟺ A holds in N. But the diagonal
lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence, by

giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds
in N. This is a contradiction QED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem

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

On 2/12/24 1:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>
>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>>> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
>>>> It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because
>>>> they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>
>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>
>>>
>> They don't agree with you.
>
> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>
> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
> wrong with it.
>
>    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)
>
>

But he is wrong, because S HAS been completely specified.

On 2/12/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>
>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>> cranks.
>>
>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>
>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>> obvious?
>>>
>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>
>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>
>
> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.

In other words, you fail to prove you statement by using the FALLACY of
appeal to "authority", especially when the claimed "authority" doesn't
have any actual credentials in the field you are using them as an "expert"

>
> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner  (2011)
> COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
> Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
> Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>
> 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
>
> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
> 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>
>
>

On 2/12/2024 8:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/12/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>
>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>> cranks.
>>>
>>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>>
>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>> obvious?
>>>>
>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>
>>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>>
>>
>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
>> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>
> In other words, you fail to prove you statement by using the FALLACY of
> appeal to "authority", especially when the claimed "authority" doesn't
> have any actual credentials in the field you are using them as an "expert"
>

*I just proved that I am not a crank dipshit*

>>
>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner  (2011)
>> COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
>> Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
>> Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
>> On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>  > PREMISES:
>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>  >
>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>  > …
>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>  >
>> USENET Message-ID:
>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>
>

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

On 2024-02-13 00:55:06 +0000, olcott said:

> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>
> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
> COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
> Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
> Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>
> 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
>
> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

They are not independent. Stoddart's article is based on Hehner's
earlier articles. Hehner's article is partly based on Hehner's
articles and discussions with Storddart.

--
Mikko

Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:
> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>
>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>> cranks.
>>
>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>
>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>> obvious?
>>>
>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>
>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>
>
> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>

If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it prove?
For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who seem to
defend it.

On 2/13/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-13 00:55:06 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
>> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>>
>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner  (2011)
>> COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and
>> Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21;
>> Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
> They are not independent. Stoddart's article is based on Hehner's
> earlier articles. Hehner's article is partly based on Hehner's
> articles and discussions with Storddart.
>

Stoddart validates Hehner's research with his own analysis.
Their research is independent of mine and validates my 2004
statement. THIS PROVES THAT I AM NOT A CRANK.

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

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

On 2/13/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>
>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>> cranks.
>>>
>>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>>
>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>> obvious?
>>>>
>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>
>>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>>
>>
>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
>> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>>
>
> If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it prove?
> For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who seem to
> defend it.
>

IT PROVES THAT I AM NOT A CRANK

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

On 2/13/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>
>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>> cranks.
>>>
>>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>>
>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>> obvious?
>>>>
>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>
>>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>>
>>
>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer science
>> professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>>
>
> If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it prove?
> For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who seem to
> defend it.
>

That their reasoning is sound utterly defeats all baseless claims
to the contrary. It is an easily verified fact that the halting
problem specification <is> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.

The strongest rebuttal of this has been "no its not" utterly
baseless assertion.

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.” ???

Every single yes/no question that has been intentionally defined to have
no correct yes/no answer IS WRONG --- IS WRONG --- IS WRONG --- IS WRONG

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

Op 13.feb.2024 om 16:33 schreef olcott:
> On 2/13/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>
>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>> cranks.
>>>>
>>>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>>>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>>>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>
>>>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>>>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer
>>> science professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>>>
>>
>> If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it prove?
>> For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who seem to
>> defend it.
>>
>
> That their reasoning is sound utterly defeats all baseless claims
> to the contrary. It is an easily verified fact that the halting
> problem specification <is> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>
> The strongest rebuttal of this has been "no its not" utterly
> baseless assertion.
>
> 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.

Olcott does not understand that it is not one question. Even after it
has been explained to him so many times. For the Ĥ that answers 'no', it
is a different question that for the Ĥ that answers 'yes', but both give
the wrong answer.

On 2/13/2024 10:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 13.feb.2024 om 16:33 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/13/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>
>>>>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.  (1) I
>>>>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>>>>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>>>>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer
>>>> science professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it
>>> prove? For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who
>>> seem to defend it.
>>>
>>
>> That their reasoning is sound utterly defeats all baseless claims
>> to the contrary. It is an easily verified fact that the halting
>> problem specification <is> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>
>> The strongest rebuttal of this has been "no its not" utterly
>> baseless assertion.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Olcott does not understand that it is not one question.

I and professor Hehner both understand that it <is> one
question that has been intentionally defined such that
both yes and no are the wrong answer.

All rebuttals have had the totally baseless form of merely
dogmatically asserting disagreement.

Because it is an easily verified fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
*All rebuttals are either foolish or dishonest*

> Even after it
> has been explained to him so many times. For the Ĥ that answers 'no', it
> is a different question that for the Ĥ that answers 'yes', but both give
> the wrong answer.

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

Op 13.feb.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
> On 2/13/2024 10:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.feb.2024 om 16:33 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/13/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.
>>>>>> (1) I
>>>>>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>>>>>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who wants to
>>>>>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer
>>>>> science professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it
>>>> prove? For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who
>>>> seem to defend it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That their reasoning is sound utterly defeats all baseless claims
>>> to the contrary. It is an easily verified fact that the halting
>>> problem specification <is> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>> The strongest rebuttal of this has been "no its not" utterly
>>> baseless assertion.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Olcott does not understand that it is not one question.
>
> I and professor Hehner both understand that it <is> one
> question that has been intentionally defined such that
> both yes and no are the wrong answer.

Han is asked the question whether Dan halts; Hah is asked the question
whether Dah halts. Dan is not Dah, so these ARE different questions.
Most people understand it when it is repeated two or three times, but it
seems olcott needs 1000, or 10000 more times to understand it.

A simple denial is not a rebuttal.

On 02/12/2024 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/12/2024 05:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <uqcute$1fhr2$1@dont-email.me>, Mikko
>> <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-12 01:22:35 +0000, Dan Cross said:
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>> cranks.
>>>
>>> What other purpose would you want to use this group?
>>
>> Perhaps serious discussions of theoretical computer science?
>>
>> Sadly, this does not appear possible. I see that this thread
>> has already devolved into arguments with olcott about his
>> specious claims.
>>
>> - Dan C.
>>
>
> Why is "classical quasi-modal logic" with "ex falso quodlibet
> plus material implication" considered so usual when all computer
> "logic" is implemented with NAND gates and the "Boolean lattice",
> not the "Compte's Boole's Russell's Whitehead's logical positivism's
> classical quasi-modal logic"?
>
> I think that what's called "classical logic" today should
> be called "classical _quasi-modal_ logic" to better reflect
> what it is, and that De Morgan's rules or "the classical
> logic with direct implication and a functional contrapositive"
> has better title to "classical logic", the term.
>
>
> Wondering whether "LLM" is "large language model"
> or "Lots'o LISP Macros".
>
>

It kind of seems like "the Turing machine has
infinite tapes including both infinite data and
infinite program tapes, or not", vis-a-vis what's
usually for matters of bounds. (Or the order,
the order of the size of the input or how much
time it takes to spigot off a datum.)

There's lots to be said for Chaitin's analysis,
what is the proportion of programs that halt,
what is Chaitin's Omega, is it 85% meaning 1 or
so standard deviations off the mean or is it 50/50,
in the space of all programs with the space of all inputs.

It sort of asks for what "computing" is at all, with
respect to it fundamentally doing work and making information.

Then there's an idea of "what is a model of computing
fundamentally at all", gets into the various notions of
what either generates something, or resolves something,
what are the outer or inner products respectively, of
acts of computation on bodies of information.

So, this talk of Church-Rice and halting, is pretty simple
because all that's sort of the result of the anti-diagonal
argument about the space of words and the space of words,
it's pretty simple that the usual incompleteness proofs
are mostly the same way, vis-a-vis more "concrete" proofs
of usual notions of concreteness of completeness, and also,
what are proportions in resources that variously guarantee
or otherwise make for confidence, satisfaction.

So, fundamental computing science has on the one hand
something like Church-Rice, you know, "give up", and
on the other something like Chaitin resources, "how
much or how often", that also one shouldn't forget
that Goedel first has _completeness_ results of arithmetic,
_then_ incompleteness results, and as to how and why
fundamental computer science theory is all sort of one
little clannish set of ordinary results after Russell.

So, yeah, this sort of Chaitin-Goedel bit, can have a lot
to say, where it is still so that whether a program halts
or doesn't is that it does or doesn't.

Then this is for concrete mathematics to say how so,
instead of non-constructivist ordinary simple would-be
word-counters, to, "give up".

Then there's also that in the bounded of course, it just
takes an arbitrarily larger bounded analysis, to return in
finite time, any finite program's any finite input's
halting or lack thereof, and furthermore its results
both when it does if it does, and, where it's at when it don't.

Bonjour

On 2/13/2024 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 13.feb.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/13/2024 10:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 13.feb.2024 om 16:33 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 2/13/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 13.feb.2024 om 01:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 6:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As one who has replied (quite a lot) I will offer two defences.
>>>>>>> (1) I
>>>>>>> tried (and I feel I succeeded) in trying to pin down explicitly what
>>>>>>> form of nonsense was being espoused.  (2) I stopped.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's gone crazy but, sadly, I doubt there is anyone left who
>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>> discuss comp.theory in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key difference is that I now have is that two PhD computer
>>>>>> science professors independently affirm my 2004 statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If true, I am very sorry for those professors. But what does it
>>>>> prove? For whatever falsehood Google can find a few professors who
>>>>> seem to defend it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That their reasoning is sound utterly defeats all baseless claims
>>>> to the contrary. It is an easily verified fact that the halting
>>>> problem specification <is> isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> The strongest rebuttal of this has been "no its not" utterly
>>>> baseless assertion.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Olcott does not understand that it is not one question.
>>
>> I and professor Hehner both understand that it <is> one
>> question that has been intentionally defined such that
>> both yes and no are the wrong answer.
>
> Han is asked the question whether Dan halts; Hah is asked the question
> whether Dah halts. Dan is not Dah, so these ARE different questions.
> Most people understand it when it is repeated two or three times, but it
> seems olcott needs 1000, or 10000 more times to understand it.
>
> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.

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

Since the second "⊢*" specifies the infinite set of
every sequence of state transitions then

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
*Applies to every element of this infinite set*

*Enough with the deceptive shell games already*

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