On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or (d)
>>>>> have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>
>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of who
>>> is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a correct
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of (c) or
>>> (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>
>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>
>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>
>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to acknowledge)
>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>>
>
> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the criteria
> of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>

*Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
That I am correct about the halting problem entails
that I am correct about the Tarski Undefinability theorem.

Only by proving that the Tarski Undefinability theorem
is incorrect can an AI be created that detect lies.

This system could argue against every lie about climate
change at every language level so effectively that the
liars would look foolish even to themselves.

--
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 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 4:54 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This
>>>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>>>> in dollars and cents?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be
>>>> built.
>>>
>>> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>>>
>>> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>>>
>>> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
>>> ocean.
>>
>> Correct. These are actual limits.
>>
>
> In other words because you cannot tell me the
> square-root of an actual banana you must be stupid.
>

No, but your comment about it shows tha tyou are.

On 2/23/24 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/24 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This
>>>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>>>> in dollars and cents?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be
>>>> built.
>>>
>>> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>>>
>>> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>>>
>>> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
>>> ocean.
>>>
>>
>> And computations are limited in that no compuation can always tell if
>> the computation descirbed by its input will halt.
>
> That specifications are defined to be unsatisfiable makes these
> specifications incorrect.

Nope

You are just proving you don't know what you are talking about.

The ANSWER to the question is SATISFIABLE, for your H, the answer that H
should have given to H (H^) (H^) is Accept, i.e the input is Halting.

The PROBLEM has no instance of a machine that does the operation, so is
just uncomputable, which is an acceptable answer.

>
> That you cannot answer:
> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America in
> dollars and cents?
>
> Does not make you stupid.
>
> epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.

Nope.

Predicates answer True or False, they can not "reject"

Deciders trying to compute a predicate either Accept or Reject their input.

A "True" predicate, when given an epistemolgical antinomy just need to
gie the answer False, as the epistemological antinomy isn't a true
statement. Note, this does not imply that the statement is false, only
that it isn't true.

Validity of inputs is based on SYNTAX, is it in the basic domain of the
operator, which is a statement in the form of the language.

On 2/23/24 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> Nice to see that you agree.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The halting problem cannot be solved (we agree).
>>>
>>> The reason why the halting problem cannot be solved is
>>> that there is something wrong with it. (you fail to understand)
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>
>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>
>>> This is because the question:
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>
>>
>> There is NOTHING "wrong" with the Halting problem that accepting that
>> there are just some things that computations can not do.
>>
>
> When-so-ever a specification is defined to be unsatisfiable
> this specification does ask an incorrect question.

But the specification of the Halting Problem IS satisifiable.

Since H(D,D) returns non-halting, the correct answer that satifies the
question: "Does that Computation Described by your input Halt?" is Yes,
since D(D) Halts.

Since the question is about ANSWERS, and the ANSWER exists, it is
satisfiable.

Only your Strawman altered question is incorrect, since it changes the
categories of what it asks about.

>
> An incorrect question is defined as any question such that
> no correct answer can possibly exist.

Right, but the answer exists, so the actual question is not "incorrect"

Only your strawman altered question is incorrect.

>
> Example: What is the square-root of an actual Banana?

Which proves your stupidity as you s

>
>> What is WRONG, is YOU, who refuses to accept the proven truth of that
>> fact, just like all the people who deny global warming.
>>
>> The only difference is that global warming is demonstrated by just
>> experimental data, which can be argued with, while the limits of
>> computation are mathematically PROVEN, so, you are just proven wrong
>> to reject it.
>
> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
> no actual limit on anyone or anything, otherwise the above
> question proves that you are stupid. You are not stupid.
>

But the question is correct.

Your inability to see the difference, proves your stupidity.

On 2/23/24 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
>>>>>>> That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
>>>>>>> <is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> is not any rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that Ȟ isn't a Decider, so it isn't asked any question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your weasel words and double-talk are helping to kill the whole
>>>>> planet. If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not
>>>>> get away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> YOU are the one spreading lies.
>>>>
>>>> If you think Truth actually is computable, why don't you spend your
>>>> time working on that computation?
>>>
>>> Once self-contradictory expressions are rejected as not truth bearers
>>> then truth can be computed.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> But then, you have shown that you are too stupid to understand this.
>>
>> After all, you think the use of Strawmen is a valid form of arguent.
>>
>> Remember, the ACTUAL Halting Question is TOTALLY not
>> self-contradictory, only your Strawman rewrite, which is based on lies.
>>
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>
> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

Those may be descriptions of what you are doing, but only (c) is the
requirements specification of the problem.

when you go to (d) or (e), you now can not postulate changes to the
machine, because you have locked those details into the question.

So, your arguement about "the set of machines like Ȟ" is invalid, as the
question has removed that option.

>
> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.

They may be increasing levels of specificity of the particular action,
but are NOT decriptions of the problem to solve.

>
>> For every input that actually represents and Computation, there IS a
>> correct answer, and thus is not "self-contradictory"
>>
>
> That is the same as the assumption that all expressions of language
> are true or false by pretending that questions and epistemological
> antinomies do not exist.
>

Nope.

Show me an actual input that doesn't have an answer to the ACTUAL
QUESTION I used.

Your past failure to do this just proves your ignorance.

>> Only by altering the input to no longer be a description of an actual
>> Computation, but to be of a "Template", ad the decider to not be a
>> computation either, but a "Set" of Machines, do you get your
>> self-contradictory version of the POOPing Question.
>>
>
> The halting problem is intentionally defined with an unsatisfiable
> specification. All problems that were intentionally defined to be
> unsatisfiable are isomorphic to each other.

Nope.

Proves your stupidity

>
> What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America in
> dollars and cents?
> is isomorphic to
>
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> is isomorphic to

Nope. Just shows your utter stupidity.
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

On 2/23/24 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>>>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>> and you know that I have proven this yet don't give a rat's
>>>>> ass for the truth even if this truth about truth itself is
>>>>> the only thing that can save the Earth from death by climate
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not get
>>>>> away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. YOu are just proving your ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't actually proven anything of import, except your own
>>>> ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you actually understand how to actually prove
>>>> something, only attempt to make philosphical arguments about things
>>>> (with out actually understanding what you are talking about).
>>>>
>>>> Most lies are fairly easy to prove to be lies, as your lies have been.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The hired liars of the fossil fuel company are getting away with their
>>> lies because they are very well funded and most people simply are not
>>> bright enough to tell the difference.
>>
>> And you are stupider then them to think that they would suddenly
>> realize what is truth because some "program" told them that.
>>
>
> Such a program could relentlessly explain the truth every which way
> at every language level and do this so completely that the Liars
> would look like fools even to themselves.

Nope.

You have proved otherwise.

>
> This remains impossible all of the time that people remain unaware
> of the Ruse of Tarski Undefinability.

Nope. Almost all of those you are talking about don't even know about
Tarski.

And you are too stupid to understand any of this.

>
>> As you have proven, idiots will beleive what they want to beleive, and
>> showing them what is true won't change their mine.
>>
>>>
>>>> You can choose to ignore the proof and continue to beleive your own
>>>> lies, but you mostly only hurt yourself, and maybe a few dumb people
>>>> who you might persude with your lies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Although you admitted that the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false
>>> you continue to dodge this question:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>
>> I don'y dodge it, because, as you admit, it doesn't have an answer.
>>
>>>
>>> The above is an incorrect self-contradictory question that
>>> was intentionally defined to have no correct answer.
>>>
>>> You deceptively ignore this because you know it proves my point.
>>
>> No, I KNOW that point, but you then LIE that other questions, that
>> HAVE answers are the same as it.
>>
>
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>
>
>

On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or
>>>>>> (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of who
>>>> is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a correct
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of (c)
>>>> or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>
>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>
>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>
>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to acknowledge)
>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>>>
>>
>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>
>
> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*

The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
* Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
* Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input

On 23/02/24 23:44, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 4:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 20:49, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 12:43 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will
>>>>>>>>>>> only give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking
>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering"
>>>>>>>>>>> the same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the
>>>>>>>>>>> original H, and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>>>>>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is because the question:
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the
>>>>>>> input Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one
>>>>>>> of that infinite set of machines
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite!
>>>>>> Maybe Olcott can show us one that isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>
>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That you will not acknowledge that ALL questions of type (c) and (d)
>>>> have correct answers is dishonest.
>>>
>>> That you insist on ignoring the context of who is asked is dishonest.
>>> That (a) through (e) are stipulated to refer to the same thing proves
>>> that the context of who is asked CANNOT BE IGNORED.
>>>
>>
>> That (c) and (d) have correct answers proves that (a) through (e) have
>> correct answers because they are stipulated to refer to the same thing.
>
> Liar !
>

On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or
>>>>>>> (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of who
>>>>> is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a correct
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of (c)
>>>>> or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>
>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to acknowledge)
>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically
>>>> invalid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>
>>
>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>
> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>

That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
always rejected.

On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>
> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>
> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.

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

On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or
>>>>>>>> (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of
>>>>>> who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a
>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of (c)
>>>>>> or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to acknowledge)
>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically
>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>
>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>
>
> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
> always rejected.
>

Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or false,
either Accept or Reject.

The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.

Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.

Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have a
description of a computation on it.

There is no separate "Reject" state.

> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
> >
> > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
> >
> > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>
>

On 2/24/2024 2:20 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 23:44, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 4:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 20:49, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:43 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will only give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>> "answering" the same question, so your descriptiom is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>> original H, and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>>>>>>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is because the question:
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing
>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the
>>>>>>>> input Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one
>>>>>>>> of that infinite set of machines
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite!
>>>>>>> Maybe Olcott can show us one that isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that ALL questions of type (c) and
>>>>> (d) have correct answers is dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> That you insist on ignoring the context of who is asked is dishonest.
>>>> That (a) through (e) are stipulated to refer to the same thing proves
>>>> that the context of who is asked CANNOT BE IGNORED.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That (c) and (d) have correct answers proves that (a) through (e)
>>> have correct answers because they are stipulated to refer to the same
>>> thing.
>>
>> Liar !
>>
>
> So five things are the same,

On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or
>>>>>>>>> (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of
>>>>>>> who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a
>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of
>>>>>>> (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to acknowledge)
>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>
>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>
>>
>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>> always rejected.
>>
>
> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or false,
> either Accept or Reject.
>
> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>
> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>
> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have a
> description of a computation on it.
>
> There is no separate "Reject" state.

Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
thus has several meanings:
(a) The TM would not halt on its input.
(b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
(c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.

>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>  >
>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>  >
>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>
>>
>

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

On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c)
>>>>>>>>>> or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of
>>>>>>>> who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a
>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of
>>>>>>>> (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>>>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>
>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>> always rejected.
>>>
>>
>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or
>> false, either Accept or Reject.
>>
>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>>
>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>
>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have a
>> description of a computation on it.
>>
>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>
> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
> thus has several meanings:
> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.

So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an "Epistemological
Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state Qn.

If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which Halts.

H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation then H
needs to go to Qy.

So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological antinomy
proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a TRUE statement,
and thus that claim must be wrong (as epistemological antinomies can't
be true, or false).

Part of your problem is that you don't understand what a computation is,
and thus why the descirption of an actual Turing Machine can not be an
"Epistemoogical Antinomy", as it always have difinative behavior, so
there is a truth value for it. A given H^, and we can only talk abot a
given H^, as until it is made into a specific machine, we can't ask
about it, will have specific behavior and thus there IS a correct
answer, and the H that it is based on will give a SPECIFIC answer, which
will always be wrong. That fact doesn't mean there isn't an answer, just
not the one that H gave.

>
>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>  >
>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>  >
>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c)
>>>>>>>>>>> or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of
>>>>>>>>> who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a
>>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of
>>>>>>>>> (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>>>>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>
>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>> always rejected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or
>>> false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>
>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>>>
>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>
>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have a
>>> description of a computation on it.
>>>
>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>
>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>> thus has several meanings:
>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>
> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an "Epistemological
> Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state Qn.
>
> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which Halts.
>
> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation then H
> needs to go to Qy.
>
> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological antinomy
> proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a TRUE statement,
> and thus that claim must be wrong (as epistemological antinomies can't
> be true, or false).
>

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

Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.

*When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
(1) Non-halting or
(2) Not a TM description or
(3) Epistemological antinomy
Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.

When someone asks you: What time is it (yes or no)?
You answer "no" meaning that the question is incorrect.

When someone asks you: What are the colors of the flag
of the United States of America in dollars and cents?
You answer "no" meaning that the question is incorrect.

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

On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c)
>>>>>>>>>>>> or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context
>>>>>>>>>> of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has
>>>>>>>>>> a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of
>>>>>>>>>> (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>>>>>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or
>>>> false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>
>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have a
>>>> description of a computation on it.
>>>>
>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>
>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>> thus has several meanings:
>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>
>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an "Epistemological
>> Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state Qn.
>>
>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which Halts.
>>
>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation then
>> H needs to go to Qy.
>>
>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological antinomy
>> proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a TRUE
>> statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as epistemological
>> antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>
> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.

Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H should
have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was valid, as each
instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as no machine computed it.

>
> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
> (1) Non-halting or
> (2) Not a TM description or
> (3) Epistemological antinomy
> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.

But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation, so none of these can be the actual
case. To say that (Ȟ) (Ȟ) represents an epistemological antinomy means
your logic allows such a statement to be True.

>
> When someone asks you: What time is it (yes or no)?
> You answer "no" meaning that the question is incorrect.
>
> When someone asks you: What are the colors of the flag
> of the United States of America in dollars and cents?
> You answer "no" meaning that the question is incorrect.
>

Which shows your stupidity to think that a question with a form that
allows no correct answer at all, is the same as a question that has a
correct answer, but the given machine didn't give it.

On 2/24/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context
>>>>>>>>>>> of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2
>>>>>>>>>>> has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question
>>>>>>>>>>> of (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>>>>>>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or
>>>>> false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have a
>>>>> description of a computation on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>>
>>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>>> thus has several meanings:
>>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>>
>>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an "Epistemological
>>> Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state Qn.
>>>
>>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which Halts.
>>>
>>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation then
>>> H needs to go to Qy.
>>>
>>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological antinomy
>>> proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a TRUE
>>> statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as epistemological
>>> antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>>
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>
> Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H should
> have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was valid, as each
> instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as no machine computed it.
>
>>
>> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
>> (1) Non-halting or
>> (2) Not a TM description or
>> (3) Epistemological antinomy
>> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.
>
> But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation,

Likewise: "This sentence is not true." is not true
yet the epistemological antinomy remains.

The only way around this is to redefine the notion
of a decider that returns true for True(L, x) and
false for epistemological antinomies and other reasons.

*This is not your idea, yet you finally recognized*
*that my idea (from years ago) is correct*

On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>
> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>
> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.

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

On 2/24/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context
>>>>>>>>>>>> of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2
>>>>>>>>>>>> has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question
>>>>>>>>>>>> of (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the
>>>>>>>>>> criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>>>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or
>>>>>> false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have a
>>>>>> description of a computation on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>>>> thus has several meanings:
>>>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>>>
>>>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an "Epistemological
>>>> Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state Qn.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>>>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>>>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which
>>>> Halts.
>>>>
>>>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation
>>>> then H needs to go to Qy.
>>>>
>>>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological antinomy
>>>> proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a TRUE
>>>> statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as epistemological
>>>> antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>
>> Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H should
>> have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was valid, as each
>> instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as no machine
>> computed it.
>>
>>>
>>> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
>>> (1) Non-halting or
>>> (2) Not a TM description or
>>> (3) Epistemological antinomy
>>> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.
>>
>> But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation,
>
> Likewise: "This sentence is not true." is not true
> yet the epistemological antinomy remains.

>
> The only way around this is to redefine the notion
> of a decider that returns true for True(L, x) and
> false for epistemological antinomies and other reasons.

Nope.

YOu aren't allowed to do that and stay in the same system.

As mentioned before, you are welcome to try to work out the properties
of the new system based on your new definitions, but you need to
actually DO that work (or get someone to do it for you) and show that it
is actually useful. You can not just "import" work on other systems
based on different definitions until you show that the difference
doesn't change them.

On 2/24/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like 2+2 has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet
>>>>>>>>>>> the criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>>>>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or
>>>>>>> false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have
>>>>>>> a description of a computation on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>>>>> thus has several meanings:
>>>>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>>>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>>>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an "Epistemological
>>>>> Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state Qn.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>>>>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which
>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation
>>>>> then H needs to go to Qy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological
>>>>> antinomy proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a
>>>>> TRUE statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as
>>>>> epistemological antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>
>>> Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H should
>>> have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was valid, as
>>> each instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as no machine
>>> computed it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
>>>> (1) Non-halting or
>>>> (2) Not a TM description or
>>>> (3) Epistemological antinomy
>>>> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.
>>>
>>> But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation,
>>
>> Likewise: "This sentence is not true." is not true
>> yet the epistemological antinomy remains.
>
>
>>
>> The only way around this is to redefine the notion
>> of a decider that returns true for True(L, x) and
>> false for epistemological antinomies and other reasons.
>
> Nope.
>

On 2/24/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like 2+2 has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet
>>>>>>>>>>>> the criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a Turing
>>>>>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True or
>>>>>>>> false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't have
>>>>>>>> a description of a computation on it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>>>>>> thus has several meanings:
>>>>>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>>>>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>>>>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an "Epistemological
>>>>>> Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state Qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>>>>>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which
>>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation
>>>>>> then H needs to go to Qy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological
>>>>>> antinomy proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a
>>>>>> TRUE statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as
>>>>>> epistemological antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>
>>>> Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H should
>>>> have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was valid, as
>>>> each instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as no machine
>>>> computed it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
>>>>> (1) Non-halting or
>>>>> (2) Not a TM description or
>>>>> (3) Epistemological antinomy
>>>>> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation,
>>>
>>> Likewise: "This sentence is not true." is not true
>>> yet the epistemological antinomy remains.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The only way around this is to redefine the notion
>>> of a decider that returns true for True(L, x) and
>>> false for epistemological antinomies and other reasons.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>
> *Too late you already said Yup* (A truth predicate is a type of decider)
>
> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
> >
> > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
> >
> > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>
>

On 2/24/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type (c) or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like 2+2 has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a
>>>>>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>>>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>>>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True
>>>>>>>>> or false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject
>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't
>>>>>>>>> have a description of a computation on it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>>>>>>> thus has several meanings:
>>>>>>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>>>>>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>>>>>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an
>>>>>>> "Epistemological Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is state
>>>>>>> Qn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>>>>>>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state which
>>>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation
>>>>>>> then H needs to go to Qy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological
>>>>>>> antinomy proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a
>>>>>>> TRUE statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H
>>>>> should have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was
>>>>> valid, as each instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as
>>>>> no machine computed it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
>>>>>> (1) Non-halting or
>>>>>> (2) Not a TM description or
>>>>>> (3) Epistemological antinomy
>>>>>> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation,
>>>>
>>>> Likewise: "This sentence is not true." is not true
>>>> yet the epistemological antinomy remains.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only way around this is to redefine the notion
>>>> of a decider that returns true for True(L, x) and
>>>> false for epistemological antinomies and other reasons.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>
>> *Too late you already said Yup* (A truth predicate is a type of decider)
>>
>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>  >
>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>  >
>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>
>>
>
> The problem is that it doesn't get around the problem.

On 2/24/24 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type (c) or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers like 2+2 has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>>>>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>>>>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True
>>>>>>>>>> or false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> have a description of a computation on it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>>>>>>>> thus has several meanings:
>>>>>>>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>>>>>>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>>>>>>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an
>>>>>>>> "Epistemological Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is
>>>>>>>> state Qn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>>>>>>>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state
>>>>>>>> which Halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation
>>>>>>>> then H needs to go to Qy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological
>>>>>>>> antinomy proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a
>>>>>>>> TRUE statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H
>>>>>> should have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was
>>>>>> valid, as each instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as
>>>>>> no machine computed it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
>>>>>>> (1) Non-halting or
>>>>>>> (2) Not a TM description or
>>>>>>> (3) Epistemological antinomy
>>>>>>> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation,
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise: "This sentence is not true." is not true
>>>>> yet the epistemological antinomy remains.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way around this is to redefine the notion
>>>>> of a decider that returns true for True(L, x) and
>>>>> false for epistemological antinomies and other reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Too late you already said Yup* (A truth predicate is a type of decider)
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>  >
>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>  >
>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that it doesn't get around the problem.
>
> *When a truth predicate Boolean True(L, x) answers that*
> truth criteria has been met in L for x or
> truth criteria has not been met in L for x
> then Epistemological antinomies are correctly rejected.
>
> *Epistemological antinomies are correctly recognized*
> truth criteria has not been met in L for x and
> truth criteria has not been met in L for ~x
>
> *A correct rebuttal to the above cannot possibly exist*
>
>
>

On 24/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 2:20 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 23:44, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 4:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 20:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:43 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true." ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will only give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "answering" the same question, so your descriptiom is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> original H, and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it
>>>>>>>>>>> exploits
>>>>>>>>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is because the question:
>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing
>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the
>>>>>>>>> input Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one
>>>>>>>>> of that infinite set of machines
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or
>>>>>>>> infinite! Maybe Olcott can show us one that isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that ALL questions of type (c) and
>>>>>> (d) have correct answers is dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you insist on ignoring the context of who is asked is dishonest.
>>>>> That (a) through (e) are stipulated to refer to the same thing proves
>>>>> that the context of who is asked CANNOT BE IGNORED.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That (c) and (d) have correct answers proves that (a) through (e)
>>>> have correct answers because they are stipulated to refer to the
>>>> same thing.
>>>
>>> Liar !
>>>
>>
>> So five things are the same,
>
> Yet with some details that are unspecified yet still exist
> thus none of them has a correct answer.
>

On 24/02/24 21:17, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 2:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type (c) or (d) have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of who is asked. (c) and (d) have correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers like 2+2 has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of (c) or (d) specifies a sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the criteria of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Your head games are enabling the death of the planet*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only criteria for a valid input to a halting decider:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Sequence of symbols in the tape's alphabet, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Representation of a Turing machine and that machine's input
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not true. When a truth predicate is created using a
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> Machine and its input is an Epistemological antinomy then this
>>>>>>>>>>> input is rejected the same way every Epistemological antinomy is
>>>>>>>>>>> always rejected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Turing Decider, just like Predicates which always answer True
>>>>>>>>>> or false, either Accept or Reject.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Accept if the input matches the criteria, and reject
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if the input is something "illogical", they reject.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, the Halt Decider H, must go to Qn if the tape doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> have a description of a computation on it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no separate "Reject" state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reject is also used for Epistemological antinomies,
>>>>>>>>> thus has several meanings:
>>>>>>>>> (a) The TM would not halt on its input.
>>>>>>>>> (b) The finite string does not encode a TM description.
>>>>>>>>> (c) The input somehow derives an Epistemological antinomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, a TM Halt Decider given the description of an
>>>>>>>> "Epistemological Antinomy" would answer "Reject" , which is
>>>>>>>> state Qn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to clai nt to try to claim that (H^) (H^) is an
>>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy to H, then explain how H^ (H^) by calling
>>>>>>>> H (H^) (H^) will get to H's Qn state which is H^'s Qn state
>>>>>>>> which Halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H was defined that if its input represents a Halting Computation
>>>>>>>> then H needs to go to Qy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, your claim that (H^) (H^) represents an epistemological
>>>>>>>> antinomy proves that that epistemological antinomy is actually a
>>>>>>>> TRUE statement, and thus that claim must be wrong (as
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies can't be true, or false).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which, since in each case there WAS a correct behavior that H
>>>>>> should have done, but didn't, just shows that the Question was
>>>>>> valid, as each instance had a correct answer, but uncomputable, as
>>>>>> no machine computed it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *When Ȟ.qn is defined as*
>>>>>>> (1) Non-halting or
>>>>>>> (2) Not a TM description or
>>>>>>> (3) Epistemological antinomy
>>>>>>> Then Ȟ derives a correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Ȟ (Ȟ) was a halting computation,
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise: "This sentence is not true." is not true
>>>>> yet the epistemological antinomy remains.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way around this is to redefine the notion
>>>>> of a decider that returns true for True(L, x) and
>>>>> false for epistemological antinomies and other reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Too late you already said Yup* (A truth predicate is a type of decider)
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>  >
>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>  >
>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that it doesn't get around the problem.
>
> *When a truth predicate Boolean True(L, x) answers that*
> truth criteria has been met in L for x or
> truth criteria has not been met in L for x
> then Epistemological antinomies are correctly rejected.