On 2/22/2024 3:38 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 22/02/24 06:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>
>>> If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting problem
>>> is specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick which variant
>>> of the problem to specify). If you don't understand part of its
>>> specification, ask about it in this group - it will be more
>>> constructive than most of your posts.
>
> You did not reply to this part.

*I don't respond to nonsense*
Every instance of the conventional halting problem is the same the input
does that opposite of whatever its corresponding decider determines.

>>>
>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>
>>> So they can be answered?
>>>
>>
>> Why do you play so dumb?
>> Incorrect questions cannot be correctly answered because
>> there is something wrong with them and you know this already. >
>>> If they cannot be answered, then that is an actual limit on what can
>>> be answered.
>>
>
> So this places a limit on what can be answered?
>

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E

The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question is the fault of
the question and cannot be blamed on anyone or anything else:

What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
in dollars and cents?

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

On 22/02/24 17:02, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 3:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 06:19, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>>
>>>> If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting problem
>>>> is specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick which variant
>>>> of the problem to specify). If you don't understand part of its
>>>> specification, ask about it in this group - it will be more
>>>> constructive than most of your posts.
>>
>> You did not reply to this part.
>
> *I don't respond to nonsense*
> Every instance of the conventional halting problem is the same the input
> does that opposite of whatever its corresponding decider determines.

You think it is nonsense that the Turing machine halting problem is
specified down to the tiniest detail? Tell me what detail is not specified.

>
>>>>
>>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer
>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>
>>>> So they can be answered?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you play so dumb?
>>> Incorrect questions cannot be correctly answered because
>>> there is something wrong with them and you know this already. >
>>>> If they cannot be answered, then that is an actual limit on what can
>>>> be answered.
>>>
>>
>> So this places a limit on what can be answered?
>>
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>
> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question is the fault of
> the question and cannot be blamed on anyone or anything else:
>
> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
> in dollars and cents?
>
You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that tells the
colours of flags in dollars and cents. This places a limitation on what
can be built.

On 2/22/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/21/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>
>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>
>>> *My 2004 example of an ill-formed question* (linked above)
>>> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>> in dollars and cents?
>>>
>>> *This too cannot be computed*
>>>
>>
>> Both of them have shown they don't understand what "Computation
>> Theory" is about, or what a "Computation" is in Computation Theory.
>>
>> Since that is much more a "Mathematical" field than "Computer
>> Science", having been developed well before the modern computer, that
>> isn't that surprising for someone who has studied more "Modern" parts
>> of Computer Science, and not the highly theoretical roots of the field.
>>
>> You seem to fall into this same category, but seem to not even have
>> the understanding of modern theory, or of the theory of logic, as you
>> can't seem to put together even the most basic of arguments without
>> significant errors in understanding.
>>
>> You have just been proving your total ignorance of the field, and your
>> inability to understand what is truth, which has turn you into a
>> pathological liar.
>
> As always you try to get away with the deception of merely denigrating
> work without pointing any error because you already know there is no
> error.
>

I have pointed out the errors before, so I don't need to again.

You just don't understand, because you are too stupid.

YOU need to figure out why 3 vs Thousands win.

IF you try to resort to counting people who agree with you, you need to
also count those who disagree, which vastly out number them.

One fundamental error in all those papers is a misunderstanding of what
the term "Comutation" means.

Within that definition, there can NOT be a "Context dependent
Computation" as BY DEFINITION, a Computation is only dependent on its
actual input, so either the context is DEFINED as part of its input
(whch isn't in the case of a Halt Decider) or it can't change its
behavior based on something it can't depend on.

If you want to hire, FOR PAY, my services, then we can discuss terms,
but until then, you can't tell me how I need to rebut you.

Your mere attempt to invoke their work as support just proves that you
don't understand how logic works, as you are invoking the fallacy of
appeal to authority, and doing it badly, as you can't establish that
they actually are a real "authority", just that they have a degree and
position that thousands of others (who disagree with them) hold.

So, you fail even with trying to your invalid arguments.

On 2/22/24 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 3:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 06:19, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>>
>>>> If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting problem
>>>> is specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick which variant
>>>> of the problem to specify). If you don't understand part of its
>>>> specification, ask about it in this group - it will be more
>>>> constructive than most of your posts.
>>
>> You did not reply to this part.
>
> *I don't respond to nonsense*
> Every instance of the conventional halting problem is the same the input
> does that opposite of whatever its corresponding decider determines.

And neither do we.

>
>>>>
>>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer
>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>
>>>> So they can be answered?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you play so dumb?
>>> Incorrect questions cannot be correctly answered because
>>> there is something wrong with them and you know this already. >
>>>> If they cannot be answered, then that is an actual limit on what can
>>>> be answered.
>>>
>>
>> So this places a limit on what can be answered?
>>
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>
> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question is the fault of
> the question and cannot be blamed on anyone or anything else:
>
> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
> in dollars and cents?
>

And the only "incorrect" questions are your strawmen, which you create
because you can't show how the ACTUAL questions are incorrect.

Thus, YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT and are just proving your total
stupidity by trying to continue by repeating the arguements, shown to be
incorrect.

You have "admitted" they are incorrect, because you don't actually
attempt to refute the rebuttals that show them broken.

On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>>
>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer self-contradictory
>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>
>>>> *My 2004 example of an ill-formed question* (linked above)
>>>> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>> in dollars and cents?
>>>>
>>>> *This too cannot be computed*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both of them have shown they don't understand what "Computation
>>> Theory" is about, or what a "Computation" is in Computation Theory.
>>>
>>> Since that is much more a "Mathematical" field than "Computer
>>> Science", having been developed well before the modern computer, that
>>> isn't that surprising for someone who has studied more "Modern" parts
>>> of Computer Science, and not the highly theoretical roots of the field.
>>>
>>> You seem to fall into this same category, but seem to not even have
>>> the understanding of modern theory, or of the theory of logic, as you
>>> can't seem to put together even the most basic of arguments without
>>> significant errors in understanding.
>>>
>>> You have just been proving your total ignorance of the field, and
>>> your inability to understand what is truth, which has turn you into a
>>> pathological liar.
>>
>> As always you try to get away with the deception of merely denigrating
>> work without pointing any error because you already know there is no
>> error.
>>
>
> I have pointed out the errors before, so I don't need to again.
>
> You just don't understand, because you are too stupid.
>
> YOU need to figure out why 3 vs Thousands win.
>
> IF you try to resort to counting people who agree with you, you need to
> also count those who disagree, which vastly out number them.
>
> One fundamental error in all those papers is a misunderstanding of what
> the term "Comutation" means.
>
> Within that definition, there can NOT be a "Context dependent
> Computation" as BY DEFINITION, a Computation is only dependent on its
> actual input, so either the context is DEFINED as part of its input
> (whch isn't in the case of a Halt Decider) or it can't change its
> behavior based on something it can't depend on.
>
>
> If you want to hire, FOR PAY, my services, then we can discuss terms,
> but until then, you can't tell me how I need to rebut you.
>
> Your mere attempt to invoke their work as support just proves that you
> don't understand how logic works, as you are invoking the fallacy of
> appeal to authority, and doing it badly, as you can't establish that
> they actually are a real "authority", just that they have a degree and
> position that thousands of others (who disagree with them) hold.
>
> So, you fail even with trying to your invalid arguments.

epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 3:38 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 22/02/24 06:19, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/24 03:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he thinks that, he is a moron. The Turing machine halting
>>>>> problem is specified down to the tiniest detail (once you pick
>>>>> which variant of the problem to specify). If you don't understand
>>>>> part of its specification, ask about it in this group - it will be
>>>>> more constructive than most of your posts.
>>>
>>> You did not reply to this part.
>>
>> *I don't respond to nonsense*
>> Every instance of the conventional halting problem is the same the input
>> does that opposite of whatever its corresponding decider determines.
>
> And neither do we.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer
>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> So they can be answered?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you play so dumb?
>>>> Incorrect questions cannot be correctly answered because
>>>> there is something wrong with them and you know this already. >
>>>>> If they cannot be answered, then that is an actual limit on what
>>>>> can be answered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So this places a limit on what can be answered?
>>>
>>
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>
>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question is the fault of
>> the question and cannot be blamed on anyone or anything else:
>>
>> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>> in dollars and cents?
>>
>
> And the only "incorrect" questions are your strawmen, which you create
> because you can't show how the ACTUAL questions are incorrect.
>

epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.

> Thus, YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT and are just proving your total
> stupidity by trying to continue by repeating the arguements, shown to be
> incorrect.
>
> You have "admitted" they are incorrect, because you don't actually
> attempt to refute the rebuttals that show them broken.
>
>

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

On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.

They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to a
Turing machine.

On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>
> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to a
> Turing machine.
>

Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt

Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
evaluates the truth of this sentence:

"You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."

Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")

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

On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>
>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to a
>> Turing machine.
>>
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>
> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>
> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>
> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>

Then it will have to return the wrong answer.

On 23/02/24 16:56, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer
>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> *My 2004 example of an ill-formed question* (linked above)
>>>>> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>> in dollars and cents?
>>>>>
>>>>> *This too cannot be computed*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both of them have shown they don't understand what "Computation
>>>> Theory" is about, or what a "Computation" is in Computation Theory.
>>>>
>>>> Since that is much more a "Mathematical" field than "Computer
>>>> Science", having been developed well before the modern computer,
>>>> that isn't that surprising for someone who has studied more "Modern"
>>>> parts of Computer Science, and not the highly theoretical roots of
>>>> the field.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to fall into this same category, but seem to not even have
>>>> the understanding of modern theory, or of the theory of logic, as
>>>> you can't seem to put together even the most basic of arguments
>>>> without significant errors in understanding.
>>>>
>>>> You have just been proving your total ignorance of the field, and
>>>> your inability to understand what is truth, which has turn you into
>>>> a pathological liar.
>>>
>>> As always you try to get away with the deception of merely denigrating
>>> work without pointing any error because you already know there is no
>>> error.
>>>
>>
>> I have pointed out the errors before, so I don't need to again.
>>
>> You just don't understand, because you are too stupid.
>>
>> YOU need to figure out why 3 vs Thousands win.
>>
>> IF you try to resort to counting people who agree with you, you need
>> to also count those who disagree, which vastly out number them.
>>
>> One fundamental error in all those papers is a misunderstanding of
>> what the term "Comutation" means.
>>
>> Within that definition, there can NOT be a "Context dependent
>> Computation" as BY DEFINITION, a Computation is only dependent on its
>> actual input, so either the context is DEFINED as part of its input
>> (whch isn't in the case of a Halt Decider) or it can't change its
>> behavior based on something it can't depend on.
>>
>>
>> If you want to hire, FOR PAY, my services, then we can discuss terms,
>> but until then, you can't tell me how I need to rebut you.
>>
>> Your mere attempt to invoke their work as support just proves that you
>> don't understand how logic works, as you are invoking the fallacy of
>> appeal to authority, and doing it badly, as you can't establish that
>> they actually are a real "authority", just that they have a degree and
>> position that thousands of others (who disagree with them) hold.
>>
>> So, you fail even with trying to your invalid arguments.
>
> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input

they cannot be invalid input because they are sequences of alphabet symbols

On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>
>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to a
>>> Turing machine.
>>>
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>
>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>
>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>
>
> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.

Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
on the answerer.

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

On 2/23/2024 2:26 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 16:56, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer
>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *My 2004 example of an ill-formed question* (linked above)
>>>>>> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>>> in dollars and cents?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This too cannot be computed*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both of them have shown they don't understand what "Computation
>>>>> Theory" is about, or what a "Computation" is in Computation Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that is much more a "Mathematical" field than "Computer
>>>>> Science", having been developed well before the modern computer,
>>>>> that isn't that surprising for someone who has studied more
>>>>> "Modern" parts of Computer Science, and not the highly theoretical
>>>>> roots of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to fall into this same category, but seem to not even have
>>>>> the understanding of modern theory, or of the theory of logic, as
>>>>> you can't seem to put together even the most basic of arguments
>>>>> without significant errors in understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have just been proving your total ignorance of the field, and
>>>>> your inability to understand what is truth, which has turn you into
>>>>> a pathological liar.
>>>>
>>>> As always you try to get away with the deception of merely denigrating
>>>> work without pointing any error because you already know there is no
>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have pointed out the errors before, so I don't need to again.
>>>
>>> You just don't understand, because you are too stupid.
>>>
>>> YOU need to figure out why 3 vs Thousands win.
>>>
>>> IF you try to resort to counting people who agree with you, you need
>>> to also count those who disagree, which vastly out number them.
>>>
>>> One fundamental error in all those papers is a misunderstanding of
>>> what the term "Comutation" means.
>>>
>>> Within that definition, there can NOT be a "Context dependent
>>> Computation" as BY DEFINITION, a Computation is only dependent on its
>>> actual input, so either the context is DEFINED as part of its input
>>> (whch isn't in the case of a Halt Decider) or it can't change its
>>> behavior based on something it can't depend on.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to hire, FOR PAY, my services, then we can discuss terms,
>>> but until then, you can't tell me how I need to rebut you.
>>>
>>> Your mere attempt to invoke their work as support just proves that
>>> you don't understand how logic works, as you are invoking the fallacy
>>> of appeal to authority, and doing it badly, as you can't establish
>>> that they actually are a real "authority", just that they have a
>>> degree and position that thousands of others (who disagree with them)
>>> hold.
>>>
>>> So, you fail even with trying to your invalid arguments.
>>
>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input
>
> they cannot be invalid input because they are sequences of alphabet symbols

Liar

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

On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>
>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to a
>>>> Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>
>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>
>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>
>>
>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>
> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
> on the answerer.
>

Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame? It
is simply stating a fact. It is not saying that you are too stupid to
solve it.

On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to
>>>>> a Turing machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>
>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>
>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>
>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>> on the answerer.
>>
>
> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?

The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.

> It
> is simply stating a fact. It is not saying that you are too stupid to
> solve it.
>

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

On 2/23/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stoddart seems to know this much better than most. He understands
>>>>> that the halting problem is not even coherently specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hehner also show that he knows this better than most. He refutes the
>>>>> stupid belief that the inability to correctly answer
>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>> questions places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> *My 2004 example of an ill-formed question* (linked above)
>>>>> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>> in dollars and cents?
>>>>>
>>>>> *This too cannot be computed*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both of them have shown they don't understand what "Computation
>>>> Theory" is about, or what a "Computation" is in Computation Theory.
>>>>
>>>> Since that is much more a "Mathematical" field than "Computer
>>>> Science", having been developed well before the modern computer,
>>>> that isn't that surprising for someone who has studied more "Modern"
>>>> parts of Computer Science, and not the highly theoretical roots of
>>>> the field.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to fall into this same category, but seem to not even have
>>>> the understanding of modern theory, or of the theory of logic, as
>>>> you can't seem to put together even the most basic of arguments
>>>> without significant errors in understanding.
>>>>
>>>> You have just been proving your total ignorance of the field, and
>>>> your inability to understand what is truth, which has turn you into
>>>> a pathological liar.
>>>
>>> As always you try to get away with the deception of merely denigrating
>>> work without pointing any error because you already know there is no
>>> error.
>>>
>>
>> I have pointed out the errors before, so I don't need to again.
>>
>> You just don't understand, because you are too stupid.
>>
>> YOU need to figure out why 3 vs Thousands win.
>>
>> IF you try to resort to counting people who agree with you, you need
>> to also count those who disagree, which vastly out number them.
>>
>> One fundamental error in all those papers is a misunderstanding of
>> what the term "Comutation" means.
>>
>> Within that definition, there can NOT be a "Context dependent
>> Computation" as BY DEFINITION, a Computation is only dependent on its
>> actual input, so either the context is DEFINED as part of its input
>> (whch isn't in the case of a Halt Decider) or it can't change its
>> behavior based on something it can't depend on.
>>
>>
>> If you want to hire, FOR PAY, my services, then we can discuss terms,
>> but until then, you can't tell me how I need to rebut you.
>>
>> Your mere attempt to invoke their work as support just proves that you
>> don't understand how logic works, as you are invoking the fallacy of
>> appeal to authority, and doing it badly, as you can't establish that
>> they actually are a real "authority", just that they have a degree and
>> position that thousands of others (who disagree with them) hold.
>>
>> So, you fail even with trying to your invalid arguments.
>
> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input

But a "Truth Predicate" must logically answer it.

The answer can be "Not True" (which doesn't imply the input is false)
for a simple predicate, or it could be a trinary predicate that answers
True / False / Non-Truth Bearer.

But the result of a "Truth Predicate" is always a "Truth Bearing" statement.

No one (but maybe you)is saying that True(L, S) is restricted to saying
that S is a True statement or a False Statement

If the "True" predicate gives a simple Truth value, then True means that
statement is True, and False means the statement is not True, it clould
be false, or it could be a nonsense sentance that doesn't have a truth
value.

This means that the "False" predicate isn't just the complement of the
True Predicate.

A more complicted Truth "Classifier" (not really a "Predicate" anymore,
as those only output True or False) could classify the statement into
three classes, in which case we end up with three predicates

If we assume Truth(L, S) is our Truth Classifier then:

True(L, S) = (Truth(L, S) == TRUE)
False(L, S) = (Truth(L, S) == FALSE)
Nonsense(L, S) = (Truth(L, S) == NONSENSE)

People have been telling you this for years, but you just don't seem to
understand, but claim that Tarski was the idiot, that you actually were.

On 2/23/24 2:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>
>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to a
>> Turing machine.
>>
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>
> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>
> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>
> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>

No,

True(English, "This sentence is not true.")

Evaluates to "False".

That doesn't mean the stateent is false, just that it isn't true.

Thus

False(English, "This sentence is not true.")

Also evaluates to "False", which means the statement is not False.

You just don't understand how predicates work.

On 2/23/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>
>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to a
>>>> Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>
>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>
>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>
>>
>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>
> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
> on the answerer.
>
>

Yes, YOUR question is incorrect.

The ORIGINAL question, "Does the Computation described by your input Ha;t?"

Has a correct answer, (for each different input that describes a
computation) and thus isn't incorrect.

On 23/02/24 22:50, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input to
>>>>>> a Turing machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>>
>>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>>> on the answerer.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?
>
> The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
> self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.

In other words, the halting problem is unsolvable because people are too
stupid to understand that some valid inputs are semantically invalid. If
people could understand that some valid inputs are invalid, the halting
problem would be solvable?

On 2/24/2024 2:21 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 22:50, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input
>>>>>>> to a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>>>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>>>> on the answerer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?
>>
>> The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
>> self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>
> In other words, the halting problem is unsolvable because people are too
> stupid to understand that some valid inputs are semantically invalid. If
> people could understand that some valid inputs are invalid, the halting
> problem would be solvable?
>

It is because math has decided to make sure that it ignores semantics
that paradoxes can arise otherwise they would be rejected as incoherent.

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
was composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an
example of a sentence that is grammatically well-formed, but
semantically nonsensical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously#

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

On 24/02/24 17:17, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 2:21 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 22:50, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input
>>>>>>>> to a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>>>>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>>>>> on the answerer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?
>>>
>>> The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
>>> self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>>
>> In other words, the halting problem is unsolvable because people are
>> too stupid to understand that some valid inputs are semantically
>> invalid. If people could understand that some valid inputs are
>> invalid, the halting problem would be solvable?
>>
>
> It is because math has decided to make sure that it ignores semantics
> that paradoxes can arise otherwise they would be rejected as incoherent.

Find a natural number x so that x=1-x
must be rejected because there is something wrong with it?

On 24/02/24 17:17, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 2:21 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 22:50, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input
>>>>>>>> to a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>>>>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>>>>> on the answerer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?
>>>
>>> The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
>>> self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>>
>> In other words, the halting problem is unsolvable because people are
>> too stupid to understand that some valid inputs are semantically
>> invalid. If people could understand that some valid inputs are
>> invalid, the halting problem would be solvable?
>>
>
> It is because math has decided to make sure that it ignores semantics
> that paradoxes can arise otherwise they would be rejected as incoherent.
>
> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
> was composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an
> example of a sentence that is grammatically well-formed, but
> semantically nonsensical.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously#
>

All Turing machines that are grammatically well-formed are semantically
sensical.

On 2/25/2024 7:42 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 24/02/24 17:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 2:21 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 22:50, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid input
>>>>>>>>> to a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>>>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>>>>>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>>>>>> on the answerer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?
>>>>
>>>> The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
>>>> self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>>>
>>> In other words, the halting problem is unsolvable because people are
>>> too stupid to understand that some valid inputs are semantically
>>> invalid. If people could understand that some valid inputs are
>>> invalid, the halting problem would be solvable?
>>>
>>
>> It is because math has decided to make sure that it ignores semantics
>> that paradoxes can arise otherwise they would be rejected as incoherent.
>
> Find a natural number x so that x=1-x
> must be rejected because there is something wrong with it?

The halting problem cannot be solved because no solution
exists is circular.

Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt

What is it specifically about Ȟ that prevents every
implementation of itself from correctly reporting
on its own behavior?

*I say the reason is that Ȟ is defined to be self-contradictory*

Any disagreement requires an alternative reason. The reason
why cannot correctly report on its own behavior cannot be no
reason and it cannot be a circular reason.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/25/24 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 7:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 24/02/24 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 2:21 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 22:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid
>>>>>>>>>> input to a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>>>>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>>>>>>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>>>>>>> on the answerer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?
>>>>>
>>>>> The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
>>>>> self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the halting problem is unsolvable because people are
>>>> too stupid to understand that some valid inputs are semantically
>>>> invalid. If people could understand that some valid inputs are
>>>> invalid, the halting problem would be solvable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is because math has decided to make sure that it ignores semantics
>>> that paradoxes can arise otherwise they would be rejected as incoherent.
>>
>> Find a natural number x so that x=1-x
>> must be rejected because there is something wrong with it?
>
>
> The halting problem cannot be solved because no solution
> exists is circular.

But the simple fact that No Halt Decider exists isn't.

Nonexistence of something doesn't NEED a reason. There might be a good
expanation, but the absence of the thing is all the proof needed that it
doesn't exist.

Why are there no 1000' tall statues of a Bumble Bee?

Does there really NEED to be a reason, other than it hasn't been done?

>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ that prevents every
> implementation of itself from correctly reporting
> on its own behavior?
>
> *I say the reason is that Ȟ is defined to be self-contradictory*

Which can't be true, as Ȟ itself isn't answering a question, it has
behavior that it inherits from H, which it acts contrary to, but that
isn't "itself"

>
> Any disagreement requires an alternative reason. The reason
> why cannot correctly report on its own behavior cannot be no
> reason and it cannot be a circular reason.

Nope. That claim just proves that you are stupid.

On 25/02/24 17:09, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 7:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 24/02/24 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 2:21 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 22:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are sequences of alphabet symbols, so they are valid
>>>>>>>>>> input to a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not when the Turing Machine implements a truth predicate that
>>>>>>>>> evaluates the truth of this sentence:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "You halt on your own Turing Machine Description."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then it becomes isomorphic to this:
>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then it will have to return the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that it is an incorrect question placing
>>>>>>> all of the blame on the question and none of the blame
>>>>>>> on the answerer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think the halting problem being unsolvable is about blame?
>>>>>
>>>>> The blame remains that people are too stupid to understand that
>>>>> self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the halting problem is unsolvable because people are
>>>> too stupid to understand that some valid inputs are semantically
>>>> invalid. If people could understand that some valid inputs are
>>>> invalid, the halting problem would be solvable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is because math has decided to make sure that it ignores semantics
>>> that paradoxes can arise otherwise they would be rejected as incoherent.
>>
>> Find a natural number x so that x=1-x
>> must be rejected because there is something wrong with it?
>
>
> The halting problem cannot be solved because no solution
> exists is circular.

It's only circular if it's a circle. You think the proof is like this:
It cannot be solved because no solution exists.
No solution exists because it cannot be solved.

But the real proof is this:
It cannot be solved because no solution exists.
No solution exists because everything you think is a solution actually
isn't a solution.
It isn't a solution because it gets at least one answer wrong.
It gets at least one answer wrong because it gets THIS answer wrong.
You can find out THIS answer (which it gets wrong) by using this
procedure: ...