Does Olcott think that
x=1 if x=0 else 0
has the same problem as:
H=if(H) return 1; else return 0;
?

If the fallacy wasn't obvious, let me be explicit with inline text
strings, as in most computer languages:

x="1" if x=0 else "0"
H="if(H) return 1; else return 0;"

x="1" if x=0 else "0"
This does not define a value for x. Questions about the value of x are
incorrect questions because x is not defined coherently.

x="1 if x=0 else 0"
This defines a value for x. Questions about the value of x can be
correct questions because x is defined coherently. For example, the
third character of x is 'i' and the fourth character is 'f'.

On 22/02/24 20:47, immibis wrote:
> Does Olcott think that
>    x=1 if x=0 else 0
> has the same problem as:
>    H=if(H) return 1; else return 0;
> ?
>
> If the fallacy wasn't obvious, let me be explicit with inline text
> strings, as in most computer languages:
>
>    x="1" if x=0 else "0"
>    H="if(H) return 1; else return 0;"
>
>
>
>
>    x="1" if x=0 else "0"
> This does not define a value for x. Questions about the value of x are
> incorrect questions because x is not defined coherently.
>
>    x="1 if x=0 else 0"
> This defines a value for x. Questions about the value of x can be
> correct questions because x is defined coherently. For example, the
> third character of x is 'i' and the fourth character is 'f'.

Olcott finds himself unable to witness this point.