On 2/13/24 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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

No, that claim just shows you to be a LIAR or an idiot. The symbol ⊢*
specifies the 'unlisted' set of steps that this PARTICULAR H goes
through (if it goes to that terminal state).

If you disagree, show where he used YOUR words to describe the notation.
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> *Applies to every element of this infinite set*

No, Ĥ isn' a 'decoder' so it isn't asked anything.

The requirements are on H.

His wording is the analysis based on the (proven false) assumption that
an H that meets the requirements exist.

Thus, the impossibility of the results, refutes that assumption.

You just don't seem to understand that form of logic.

>
> *Enough with the deceptive shell games already*
>

Yes, will YOU stop lying?

On 2/13/24 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

So, what is the age of the person just ONE question, no matter who you
ask it about?

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

Nope, your ARGUMENT is totally baseless, built on the mere dogmaticac
assertion of your incorrect ideas.

>
> 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*
>

Nope, that statement is FOOLISH and DISHONEST.

For Ĥ to be asked a question, it needs to have designed to a
specification that asks the quesiton.

Ĥ was designed to have behavior based on the answer IT GOT from H.

H is the machine that is asked a question, not Ĥ.

So, your arguement is just based on LIES.

>
>> 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 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
> 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*
>

A simple denial is not a rebuttal.

On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Well there's your problem, because it isn't.

Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
*different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will show
you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H, which
gets the x86utm D wrong)

On 13/02/24 15:59, olcott wrote:
> 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
>

Some professors are cranks. It's not usual, but it happens.

On 13/02/24 15:58, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Good so you agree it has no solution.

On 13/02/24 06:05, olcott wrote:
> 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*

I thought you were worried about obeying the laws about libel and so on?
Under the laws of Germany, where eternal-september is hosted, you are
now guilty of insulting a person publicly, with a maximum penalty of two
years imprisonment (but let's be real - they would probably just give
you a 100 euro fine instead, and only if you were in Germany).

On 13/02/24 02:46, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Tarski proved it cannot be formalized.

On 13/02/24 02:43, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>
>> 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)?

What?

On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>> 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*
>>
>
> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.

It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.

In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
embedded_H returns.

This proves that: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
is an incorrect question thus not limiting anyone or anything.

--
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 10:04 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well there's your problem, because it isn't.
>
> Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
> *different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will show
> you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H, which
> gets the x86utm D wrong)

Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong
answer is the generic model of the notion of an ill-formed question
that I created in 2004.

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

On 2/14/24 12:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 10:04 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well there's your problem, because it isn't.
>>
>> Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
>> *different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will
>> show you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H,
>> which gets the x86utm D wrong)
>
> Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong
> answer is the generic model of the notion of an ill-formed question
> that I created in 2004.
>

And the Halting Question, "Does the Computation described by your input
Halt when run?" always has a correct answer. In this case, it is the
opposite of whatever H returns.

Thus, the HALTING QUESTION isn't an ill-formed question, but your
strawman DIFFERENT question is.

So, you are just calling yourself stupid for asking an ill-formed
question to yourself.

On 2/14/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>> 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*
>>>
>>
>> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.
>
> It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.

Each Ĥ based on each H make a DIFFERENT question, each with a possibly
different answer.

That two different versions of the question have different answers isn't
a problem, but in fact is expected.

>
> In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
> embedded_H returns.

Right, so embedded_H was wrong.

The right answer to the QUESTION (does the machine/input described by
your input Halt when run) exists, and will always be the answer contrary
to what H gives.

>
> This proves that: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> is an incorrect question thus not limiting anyone or anything.
>

But that isn't the question, and isn't even the case in the example.

H is NOT given a description of itself, and Ĥ isn't required to give the
correct answer.

So, you logic has a category error in it.

On 2/14/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/14/24 12:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/13/2024 10:04 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Well there's your problem, because it isn't.
>>>
>>> Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
>>> *different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will
>>> show you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H,
>>> which gets the x86utm D wrong)
>>
>> Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong
>> answer is the generic model of the notion of an ill-formed question
>> that I created in 2004.
>>
>
> And the Halting Question, "Does the Computation described by your input
> Halt when run?"
> always has a correct answer. In this case, it is the
> opposite of whatever H returns.

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
The solution set is {Yes,no} not the nonsense that you said.

*You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
*You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
*You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*

When at least two PhD computer science professors independently
derive the same view that I proposed in 2024, this proves that
this is not the view of a crank.

>
> Thus, the HALTING QUESTION isn't an ill-formed question, but your
> strawman DIFFERENT question is.
>
> So, you are just calling yourself stupid for asking an ill-formed
> question to yourself.

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

On 2/14/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/14/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>
>>> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.
>>
>> It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.
>
> Each Ĥ based on each H make a DIFFERENT question, each with a possibly
> different answer.
>
> That two different versions of the question have different answers isn't
> a problem, but in fact is expected.
>
>>
>> In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
>> embedded_H returns.
>
> Right, so embedded_H was wrong.
>

Each embedded_H was intentionally defined to be contradicted by the
computation that it is contained within thus making the question:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
have no correct yes or no answer for every element of every possible Ĥ.

You are still doing better then the current experts in the
field.** The current experts in the field are not sure that
"this sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer.

**The field of truth bearers and semantic entailment.
It seems that these experts merely analyze each others
half-baked ideas and even then they do this with little
understanding. Most of these experts get at least one
key idea exactly right.

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

On 02/13/2024 01:20 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>

Hey welcome back Ben, warm regards.

Hey the other day I sort of prompted one
of these new online thinking things or
Google's Gemini about things like
"the natural unit equivalency function
and its range's extent, density, completeness,
and measure" and about things like "ubiquitous
ordinals in extra-ordinary set theory" and
things like "axiomless natural deduction"
and "axiomless geometry", it really sort of
gratified its response, I copied those up
over on sci.math the other day. (It demonstrated
extent, density, completeness, and measure of
the thing.)

Hey have you heard of "The Connection Machine"?
It's basically an idea about the architecture
of computing machines, a usual sort of
"many to many" bit, with this interesting data
structure called the "xector" after "vector",
which is the usual idea of the superscalar
vector or "very large word".

So anyways there's a book about it, called,m
"The Connection Machine", and its bibliography
really points to a lot of usually highly regarded
ideas in mechanical thinking, like Minsky from the '50's.

The idea that Chaitin has the ideas to model the
space of functions that compute vis-a-vis
"one at a time", then makes for sort of relating
how his model language and runtime, illustrates what
is the wedge between language and runtime, with
that being its own sort of model of computation.

Warm regards

On 14/02/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>> 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*
>>>
>>
>> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.
>
> [some nonsense]
>
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> is an incorrect question thus not limiting anyone or anything.

It limits me from creating a Turing machine that decides the halting
problem.

On 14/02/24 15:39, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/14/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.
>>>
>>> It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.
>>
>> Each Ĥ based on each H make a DIFFERENT question, each with a possibly
>> different answer.
>>
>> That two different versions of the question have different answers
>> isn't a problem, but in fact is expected.
>>
>>>
>>> In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
>>> embedded_H returns.
>>
>> Right, so embedded_H was wrong.
>>
>
> Each embedded_H was intentionally defined to be contradicted by the
> computation that it is contained within thus making the question:

Clearly you have no idea what you are saying.

> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> have no correct yes or no answer

That wasn't the question. It seems like you are dishonestly changing the
question.

On 14/02/24 06:42, olcott wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 10:04 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well there's your problem, because it isn't.
>>
>> Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
>> *different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will
>> show you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H,
>> which gets the x86utm D wrong)
>
> Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong

Every halting question has a correct yes or no answer.

On 2/14/2024 2:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 14/02/24 15:39, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/14/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/14/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>> It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.
>>>
>>> Each Ĥ based on each H make a DIFFERENT question, each with a
>>> possibly different answer.
>>>
>>> That two different versions of the question have different answers
>>> isn't a problem, but in fact is expected.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
>>>> embedded_H returns.
>>>
>>> Right, so embedded_H was wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Each embedded_H was intentionally defined to be contradicted by the
>> computation that it is contained within thus making the question:
>
> Clearly you have no idea what you are saying.

Clearly you do not understand that rebuttals
that are mere empty assertions are baseless.

>
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>> have no correct yes or no answer
>
> That wasn't the question. It seems like you are
> dishonestly changing the question.
>

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

The Peter Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking a different
question.

The Peter Linz H was not intentionally defined
to contradict itself.

On 2/14/2024 2:24 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 14/02/24 06:42, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/13/2024 10:04 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Well there's your problem, because it isn't.
>>>
>>> Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
>>> *different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will
>>> show you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H,
>>> which gets the x86utm D wrong)
>>
>> Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong
>
> Every halting question has a correct yes or no answer.

Three PhD computer science professors and I disagree.

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

On 2/14/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 2:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 14/02/24 06:42, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2024 10:04 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Well there's your problem, because it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
>>>> *different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will
>>>> show you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H,
>>>> which gets the x86utm D wrong)
>>>
>>> Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong
>>
>> Every halting question has a correct yes or no answer.
>
> Three PhD computer science professors and I disagree.
>

And you are all WORNG.

More than 3 PhD Computer Science Professors will agree with that statement.

So, if you want to try to count experts, you lose.

On 2/14/24 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/14/24 12:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2024 10:04 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Well there's your problem, because it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Each halting decider gets at least one answer wrong, but they get
>>>> *different* answers wrong. If you show me a halting decider, I will
>>>> show you an input that it gets wrong. (You did show us the x86utm H,
>>>> which gets the x86utm D wrong)
>>>
>>> Every yes/no question defined such that both yes and no are the wrong
>>> answer is the generic model of the notion of an ill-formed question
>>> that I created in 2004.
>>>
>>
>> And the Halting Question, "Does the Computation described by your
>> input Halt when run?" always has a correct answer. In this case, it is
>> the opposite of whatever H returns.
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> The solution set is {Yes,no} not the nonsense that you said.

Except that NOTHING in the problem is asking Ĥ that.

>
> *You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
> *You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*
> *You did not address that I proved I am not a crank*

No, by your stupid remarks like about, you are PROVING that you are.

>
> When at least two PhD computer science professors independently
> derive the same view that I proposed in 2024, this proves that
> this is not the view of a crank.

Nope, it proves that some computer science professors also don't
understand Computation Theory.

That isn't that surprising, since it isn't a core "mainstream" part of
computer science, but more a part of Mathematics.

After all, Computation Theory existed before Computers did, so isn't
based on how they actually work.

>
>>
>> Thus, the HALTING QUESTION isn't an ill-formed question, but your
>> strawman DIFFERENT question is.
>>
>> So, you are just calling yourself stupid for asking an ill-formed
>> question to yourself.
>

On 2/14/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 2:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 14/02/24 15:39, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Each Ĥ based on each H make a DIFFERENT question, each with a
>>>> possibly different answer.
>>>>
>>>> That two different versions of the question have different answers
>>>> isn't a problem, but in fact is expected.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
>>>>> embedded_H returns.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so embedded_H was wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Each embedded_H was intentionally defined to be contradicted by the
>>> computation that it is contained within thus making the question:
>>
>> Clearly you have no idea what you are saying.
>
> Clearly you do not understand that rebuttals
> that are mere empty assertions are baseless.
>
>>
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>> have no correct yes or no answer
>>
>> That wasn't the question. It seems like you are dishonestly changing
>> the question.
>>
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>
> The Peter Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking a different
> question.
>
> The Peter Linz H was not intentionally defined
> to contradict itself.
>
> The Peter Linz Ĥ was not intentionally defined
> to contradict itself.

On 2/14/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/14/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2024 10:02 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A simple denial is not a rebuttal.
>>>
>>> It <is> one question to every element of an infinite set of
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ implementations.
>>
>> Each Ĥ based on each H make a DIFFERENT question, each with a possibly
>> different answer.
>>
>> That two different versions of the question have different answers
>> isn't a problem, but in fact is expected.
>>
>>>
>>> In each case Ĥ directly contradicts whatever value that
>>> embedded_H returns.
>>
>> Right, so embedded_H was wrong.
>>
>
> Each embedded_H was intentionally defined to be contradicted by the
> computation that it is contained within thus making the question:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> have no correct yes or no answer for every element of every possible Ĥ.

So? What does intention of a machine affect wither it is a machine or not?

ALso, Ĥ is NOT defined to answer that question, but just to have BEHAVIOR.

H is the machine being asked a quesition.

The fact that Turing Machine are powerful enough to actually build a
machine that can be contrary to the machine that is designed to be a
decider, is what makes Halting non-computable.

You seem to have a fundamental problem understanding the actual meaning
of technical words, or even what "Requirements" are.

>
> You are still doing better then the current experts in the
> field.** The current experts in the field are not sure that
> "this sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer.
>
> **The field of truth bearers and semantic entailment.
> It seems that these experts merely analyze each others
> half-baked ideas and even then they do this with little
> understanding. Most of these experts get at least one
> key idea exactly right.
>

Nope, YOU are the one who has prove your self uaable to understand basic
concepts.