// States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
// ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
on its own computation.

When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
inputs incorrectly.

We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
contradict) whatever value that H returns.
*This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*

LP = "This sentence is not true."
Boolean True(English, LP) returns false for LP is not true.
Boolean True(English, ~LP) returns false for ~LP is not true.

All decision problems that fail to reject self-contradictory
inputs do so under the false assumption that these inputs
have a truth value and are truth bearers. That is what is
wrong with the halting problem and its isomorphisms.

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

On 2/27/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> // States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
> // ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
> the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
> of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
> on its own computation.

And since the logic is being done within an unproved assumption, any
contradiction shows the assumption to be incorrect, not the problem or
the system.

>
> When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
> a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
> inputs incorrectly.

So, you are admitting that your H might get some answers incorrect.

And in fact, it MUST get some answers incorrect, as there is no design
of an H that gives the correct answer for the H^ built on it.

>
> We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
> report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
> within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
> contradict) whatever value that H returns.
> *This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*

Nope, H^ contradicts H not H^, thus it is not *SELF*-Contradictiory, but
H-Contradictory.

You are just proving you are a pathological liar not knowing what the
word "self" means.

>
> LP =  "This sentence is not true."
> Boolean True(English, LP)  returns false for  LP is not true.
> Boolean True(English, ~LP) returns false for ~LP is not true.
>
> All decision problems that fail to reject self-contradictory
> inputs do so under the false assumption that these inputs
> have a truth value and are truth bearers. That is what is
> wrong with the halting problem and its isomorphisms.
>
>

But the problem is NOT "self-contradictory".

Self-Contradictory problem don't have an answer, but for every instance
of H (H^) (H^) where H is an ACTUAL INSTANCE of an ACTUAL Turing
Machine, and H^ is the "H-contrary" machine built on THAT H, then we
have shown that H^ (H^) will have a defined behavior (based on the
answer that specific H (H^) (H^) gives) so there IS a correct answer to
the question given to H, it is just that H fails to give the answer.

That makes the proble uncomputable, not invalid or self-contradictory.

You are just continuing to prove that you don't understand what you are
talking about and are too stupid to learn it, and have just made
yourself into an ignorant pathological liar.

On 2/27/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/27/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> // States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
>> // ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
>> the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
>> of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
>> on its own computation.
>
> And since the logic is being done within an unproved assumption,

This is the same assumption that you and everyone else insisted was
correct. The params to embedded H represent tat actual computation of
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

> any
> contradiction shows the assumption to be incorrect, not the problem or
> the system.
>
>>
>> When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
>> a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
>> inputs incorrectly.
>
> So, you are admitting that your H might get some answers incorrect.
>

I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.

> And in fact, it MUST get some answers incorrect, as there is no design
> of an H that gives the correct answer for the H^ built on it.

Sure there is.
ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
(that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.

True for proven to halt on its input and false for everything else.

>>
>> We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
>> report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
>> within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
>> contradict) whatever value that H returns.
>> *This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*
>
> Nope, H^ contradicts H not H^, thus it is not *SELF*-Contradictiory, but
> H-Contradictory.

Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
So Ĥ is self-contradictory.

> You are just proving you are a pathological liar not knowing what the
> word "self" means.
>

Not at all. We have been over this again and again.
A TM does not typically call another TM instead of calling
this other TM it simply embeds the states of this other TM
within itself.

>>
>> LP =  "This sentence is not true."
>> Boolean True(English, LP)  returns false for  LP is not true.
>> Boolean True(English, ~LP) returns false for ~LP is not true.
>>
>> All decision problems that fail to reject self-contradictory
>> inputs do so under the false assumption that these inputs
>> have a truth value and are truth bearers. That is what is
>> wrong with the halting problem and its isomorphisms.
>>
>>
>
> But the problem is NOT "self-contradictory".

By pointing out your errors I have proved that it is.

>
> Self-Contradictory problem don't have an answer,

The specific error with the notion of undecidability is
that it does not exclude epistemological antinomies from
the problem domain.

Epistemological antinomies are not truth bearers and have
no truth value. Asking whether an epistemological antinomy
is true or false is like asking whether this question is
true or false: What time is it?

> but for every instance
> of H (H^) (H^) where H is an ACTUAL INSTANCE of an ACTUAL Turing
> Machine, and H^ is the "H-contrary" machine built on THAT H, then we
> have shown that H^ (H^) will have a defined behavior (based on the
> answer that specific H (H^) (H^) gives) so there IS a correct answer to
> the question given to H, it is just that H fails to give the answer.
>

This is about Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ is self contradictory because it is defined to
contradict every value that its internal H returns.

// Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to H.q0
// H.q0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
// H transitions to H.qy for halts and H.qn for does not halt
// ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the H.qy state
//
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

> That makes the proble uncomputable, not invalid or self-contradictory.
>

It is only uncomputable because it is self contradictory.

> You are just continuing to prove that you don't understand what you are
> talking about and are too stupid to learn it, and have just made
> yourself into an ignorant pathological liar.

Then why does professor Hehner agree with me that there is something
wrong with the halting problem?

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

On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.

How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?

> Sure there is.
> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.

Turing conquered the Halting Problem by excluding halting deciders (that
formed epistemological antimonies) from the domain of Turing machines.

> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.

int f() {
int what_does_f_return = 2;
return 1;
}

This program contradicts its own internal state. It is
self-contradictory, right?

> The specific error with the notion of undecidability is
> that it does not exclude epistemological antinomies from
> the problem domain.

Every Turing machine/input pair is not an epistemological antinomy.

> Epistemological antinomies are not truth bearers and have
> no truth value.

The halting status of every Turing machine/input pair has a truth value.

> This is about Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ is self contradictory because it is defined to
> contradict every value that its internal H returns.

f is defined to contradict every value that its internal
what_does_f_return holds, does that mean it is self contradictory?

> Then why does professor Hehner agree with me that there is something
> wrong with the halting problem?

he doesn't

On 2/28/24 12:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/27/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> // States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>> // ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
>>> the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
>>> of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
>>> on its own computation.
>>
>> And since the logic is being done within an unproved assumption,
>
> This is the same assumption that you and everyone else insisted was
> correct. The params to embedded H represent tat actual computation of
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Yes, ASSUMEING THAT SUCH AN INPUT EXISTS.

If H itself is just hypothetical, so is anything built from it.

So, if H doesn't actually exist, neither does H^

>
>
>> any contradiction shows the assumption to be incorrect, not the
>> problem or the system.
>>
>>>
>>> When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
>>> a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
>>> inputs incorrectly.
>>
>> So, you are admitting that your H might get some answers incorrect.
>>
>
> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.

Nothing wrong with EXAMINIG the problem, just insisting that there has
to be a reason other than no such machine can exist.

The non-existance of any machine H that meets the requirements is NOT a
"problem" for the system, non-computable questions exist all the time.

The fact that there exists a correct answer for every individual
question about a specific input, means the question and problem are
"correct" and "Valid"

>
>> And in fact, it MUST get some answers incorrect, as there is no design
>> of an H that gives the correct answer for the H^ built on it.
>
> Sure there is.
> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.

Nope.

ZF establish as a requrement to use the system that no set can contain
itself. It didn't say you couldn't try to make a set a member of its
self, just not in a Formal System based on ZF.

In the same way, if you want to try to create your own NEW formal system
with such a rule, go ahead. Then you need to show how it works.

I think your biggest problem is to define what you actually mean, since
in all the problems you have been talking about, the the claimed
"epistemological antinomy" isn't in the problem statement itself, but
arises later in working on the system. Thus, how can you tell if a
problem is "valid" until you fully explore it.

Basically, you are going to need to restrict your logic system to not
allow any form of "reference", as that seems to be what is needed to
avoid the ability to form such a condition. That makes your logic system
just too weak to be useful for most things.

>
> True for proven to halt on its input and false for everything else.

Which means a H that return false all the time is correct (or even most
of the time, handling the simplest cases correctly) would be a "Correct"
Halt Decider.

Truth is NOT about what we KNOW, but about what IS.

So, you are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what truth is.

>
>>>
>>> We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
>>> report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
>>> within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
>>> contradict) whatever value that H returns.
>>> *This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*
>>
>> Nope, H^ contradicts H not H^, thus it is not *SELF*-Contradictiory, but
>> H-Contradictory.
>
> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.
>
>> You are just proving you are a pathological liar not knowing what the
>> word "self" means.
>>
>
> Not at all. We have been over this again and again.
> A TM does not typically call another TM instead of calling
> this other TM it simply embeds the states of this other TM
> within itself.

Right, so what H^ is contrary to is not ITSELF, but a piece of itself.

SELF is ALL of you, not part of you.

WOuld you object if someone described you as just your bowels? And said
that was YOU.

>
>>>
>>> LP =  "This sentence is not true."
>>> Boolean True(English, LP)  returns false for  LP is not true.
>>> Boolean True(English, ~LP) returns false for ~LP is not true.
>>>
>>> All decision problems that fail to reject self-contradictory
>>> inputs do so under the false assumption that these inputs
>>> have a truth value and are truth bearers. That is what is
>>> wrong with the halting problem and its isomorphisms.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the problem is NOT "self-contradictory".
>
> By pointing out your errors I have proved that it is.

Nope, you are just proving you don't uderstand what the words mean.

>
>>
>> Self-Contradictory problem don't have an answer,
>
> The specific error with the notion of undecidability is
> that it does not exclude epistemological antinomies from
> the problem domain.

Which just proves your total stupidity because you thoguhts are based on
a category error.

The domain of a Halt Decider is Computations built up from an Algorithm
and a Data Input.

An Epistemological Antinomy is a form of Logic Statement.

Computations are not the same thing as an Epistemological Antinomy.

Yes, in the ANALYSIS

>
> Epistemological antinomies are not truth bearers and have
> no truth value. Asking whether an epistemological antinomy
> is true or false is like asking whether this question is
> true or false: What time is it?

Right, and neither are Turing Machines. A Turing Machine is not "True"
or "False".

It might compute a result that prepresents its answer to an input as
True or False, but the machine itslf is not.

>
>> but for every instance of H (H^) (H^) where H is an ACTUAL INSTANCE of
>> an ACTUAL Turing Machine, and H^ is the "H-contrary" machine built on
>> THAT H, then we have shown that H^ (H^) will have a defined behavior
>> (based on the answer that specific H (H^) (H^) gives) so there IS a
>> correct answer to the question given to H, it is just that H fails to
>> give the answer.
>>
>
> This is about Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ is self contradictory because it is defined to
> contradict every value that its internal H returns.

But its internal H is not H^, so it isn't "SELF" contradictory.

You are just admitting that you are lying, or at least totally stupid.

>
> // Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input then transitions to H.q0
> // H.q0 is the first state of The Linz hypothetical halt decider
> // H transitions to H.qy for halts and H.qn for does not halt
> // ∞ means an infinite loop has been appended to the H.qy state
> //
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

Right, which means no such H^ can exist, which means that no such H can
exist, or we could make an H^ from it.

Therefore, no Correct Halt Deciders exist.

>
>> That makes the proble uncomputable, not invalid or self-contradictory.
>>
>
> It is only uncomputable because it is self contradictory.

Nope. Proving you are just wrong because you are ignorant and a liar.

You don't know the meaning of SELF.

I suppose that is understandable since you confuse yourself with God.

>
>> You are just continuing to prove that you don't understand what you
>> are talking about and are too stupid to learn it, and have just made
>> yourself into an ignorant pathological liar.
>
> Then why does professor Hehner agree with me that there is something
> wrong with the halting problem?
>

Because he is wrong too.

On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>
> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>
>> Sure there is.
>> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
>> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
>> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
>> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.
>
> Turing conquered the Halting Problem by excluding halting deciders (that
> formed epistemological antimonies) from the domain of Turing machines.
>
>> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
>> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.
>
> int f() {
>     int what_does_f_return = 2;
>     return 1;
> }
>
> This program contradicts its own internal state. It is
> self-contradictory, right?
>
>> The specific error with the notion of undecidability is
>> that it does not exclude epistemological antinomies from
>> the problem domain.
>
> Every Turing machine/input pair is not an epistemological antinomy.
>
>> Epistemological antinomies are not truth bearers and have
>> no truth value.
>
> The halting status of every Turing machine/input pair has a truth value.
>
>> This is about Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ is self contradictory because it is defined to
>> contradict every value that its internal H returns.
>
> f is defined to contradict every value that its internal
> what_does_f_return holds, does that mean it is self contradictory?
>
>> Then why does professor Hehner agree with me that there is something
>> wrong with the halting problem?
>
> he doesn't
>

Professor Hehner:

This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
Stoddart:

His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
something wrong with it.

Is this an accurate assessment?

<Professor Hehner>
*Yes, I would sign that statement.*
</Professor Hehner>

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

On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/28/24 12:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/27/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/27/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> // States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>> // ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
>>>> the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
>>>> of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
>>>> on its own computation.
>>>
>>> And since the logic is being done within an unproved assumption,
>>
>> This is the same assumption that you and everyone else insisted was
>> correct. The params to embedded H represent tat actual computation of
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Yes, ASSUMEING THAT SUCH AN INPUT EXISTS.
>
> If H itself is just hypothetical, so is anything built from it.
>
> So, if H doesn't actually exist, neither does H^
>
>>
>>
>>> any contradiction shows the assumption to be incorrect, not the
>>> problem or the system.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
>>>> a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
>>>> inputs incorrectly.
>>>
>>> So, you are admitting that your H might get some answers incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>
> Nothing wrong with EXAMINIG the problem, just insisting that there has
> to be a reason other than no such machine can exist.
>
> The non-existance of any machine H that meets the requirements is NOT a
> "problem" for the system, non-computable questions exist all the time.
>
> The fact that there exists a correct answer for every individual
> question about a specific input, means the question and problem are
> "correct" and "Valid"
>
>>
>>> And in fact, it MUST get some answers incorrect, as there is no
>>> design of an H that gives the correct answer for the H^ built on it.
>>
>> Sure there is.
>> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
>> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
>> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
>> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.
>
> Nope.
>
> ZF establish as a requrement to use the system that no set can contain
> itself. It didn't say you couldn't try to make a set a member of its
> self, just not in a Formal System based on ZF.
>
> In the same way, if you want to try to create your own NEW formal system
> with such a rule, go ahead. Then you need to show how it works.
>
> I think your biggest problem is to define what you actually mean, since
> in all the problems you have been talking about, the the claimed
> "epistemological antinomy" isn't in the problem statement itself, but
> arises later in working on the system. Thus, how can you tell if a
> problem is "valid" until you fully explore it.
>
> Basically, you are going to need to restrict your logic system to not
> allow any form of "reference", as that seems to be what is needed to
> avoid the ability to form such a condition. That makes your logic system
> just too weak to be useful for most things.
>
>>
>> True for proven to halt on its input and false for everything else.
>
> Which means a H that return false all the time is correct (or even most
> of the time, handling the simplest cases correctly) would be a "Correct"
> Halt Decider.
>
> Truth is NOT about what we KNOW, but about what IS.
>
> So, you are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what truth is.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
>>>> report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
>>>> within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
>>>> contradict) whatever value that H returns.
>>>> *This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*
>>>
>>> Nope, H^ contradicts H not H^, thus it is not *SELF*-Contradictiory, but
>>> H-Contradictory.
>>
>> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
>> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.
>>
>>> You are just proving you are a pathological liar not knowing what the
>>> word "self" means.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. We have been over this again and again.
>> A TM does not typically call another TM instead of calling
>> this other TM it simply embeds the states of this other TM
>> within itself.
>
> Right, so what H^ is contrary to is not ITSELF, but a piece of itself.
>

So when you stab yourself in the leg you didn't actually stab yourself
at all?

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

On 2/28/24 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 12:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> // States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>>> // ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
>>>>> the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
>>>>> of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
>>>>> on its own computation.
>>>>
>>>> And since the logic is being done within an unproved assumption,
>>>
>>> This is the same assumption that you and everyone else insisted was
>>> correct. The params to embedded H represent tat actual computation of
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> Yes, ASSUMEING THAT SUCH AN INPUT EXISTS.
>>
>> If H itself is just hypothetical, so is anything built from it.
>>
>> So, if H doesn't actually exist, neither does H^
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> any contradiction shows the assumption to be incorrect, not the
>>>> problem or the system.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
>>>>> a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
>>>>> inputs incorrectly.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are admitting that your H might get some answers incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with EXAMINIG the problem, just insisting that there has
>> to be a reason other than no such machine can exist.
>>
>> The non-existance of any machine H that meets the requirements is NOT
>> a "problem" for the system, non-computable questions exist all the time.
>>
>> The fact that there exists a correct answer for every individual
>> question about a specific input, means the question and problem are
>> "correct" and "Valid"
>>
>>>
>>>> And in fact, it MUST get some answers incorrect, as there is no
>>>> design of an H that gives the correct answer for the H^ built on it.
>>>
>>> Sure there is.
>>> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
>>> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
>>> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
>>> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> ZF establish as a requrement to use the system that no set can contain
>> itself. It didn't say you couldn't try to make a set a member of its
>> self, just not in a Formal System based on ZF.
>>
>> In the same way, if you want to try to create your own NEW formal
>> system with such a rule, go ahead. Then you need to show how it works.
>>
>> I think your biggest problem is to define what you actually mean,
>> since in all the problems you have been talking about, the the claimed
>> "epistemological antinomy" isn't in the problem statement itself, but
>> arises later in working on the system. Thus, how can you tell if a
>> problem is "valid" until you fully explore it.
>>
>> Basically, you are going to need to restrict your logic system to not
>> allow any form of "reference", as that seems to be what is needed to
>> avoid the ability to form such a condition. That makes your logic
>> system just too weak to be useful for most things.
>>
>>>
>>> True for proven to halt on its input and false for everything else.
>>
>> Which means a H that return false all the time is correct (or even
>> most of the time, handling the simplest cases correctly) would be a
>> "Correct" Halt Decider.
>>
>> Truth is NOT about what we KNOW, but about what IS.
>>
>> So, you are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what truth is.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
>>>>> report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
>>>>> within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
>>>>> contradict) whatever value that H returns.
>>>>> *This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*
>>>>
>>>> Nope, H^ contradicts H not H^, thus it is not *SELF*-Contradictiory,
>>>> but
>>>> H-Contradictory.
>>>
>>> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
>>> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>>> You are just proving you are a pathological liar not knowing what
>>>> the word "self" means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. We have been over this again and again.
>>> A TM does not typically call another TM instead of calling
>>> this other TM it simply embeds the states of this other TM
>>> within itself.
>>
>> Right, so what H^ is contrary to is not ITSELF, but a piece of itself.
>>
>
> So when you stab yourself in the leg you didn't actually stab yourself
> at all?
>

Of course I do, because I exist.

If we postulate the Easter Bunny stabbing himself in the leg, it doesn't
actually happen because there is no Easter Bunny.

If you postulate an H^ that actually meets your requirements, it doesn't
exist so it doen't contradict itself.

If you jus postulate an H^, and are asking if it got the right answer,
the answer is NO. Not because it "Contradicted itself", since it isn't a
decider and doesn't actually answer a question, but it contradicted the
H it was built on which did.

You just don't seem to have a grasp on what "Reality" is, and why it
matters.

Not even the "theoretical" reallity of a Formal System.

On 2/28/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/28/24 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/28/24 12:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> // States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>>>> // ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
>>>>>> the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
>>>>>> of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
>>>>>> on its own computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And since the logic is being done within an unproved assumption,
>>>>
>>>> This is the same assumption that you and everyone else insisted was
>>>> correct. The params to embedded H represent tat actual computation of
>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> Yes, ASSUMEING THAT SUCH AN INPUT EXISTS.
>>>
>>> If H itself is just hypothetical, so is anything built from it.
>>>
>>> So, if H doesn't actually exist, neither does H^
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> any contradiction shows the assumption to be incorrect, not the
>>>>> problem or the system.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
>>>>>> a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
>>>>>> inputs incorrectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are admitting that your H might get some answers incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with EXAMINIG the problem, just insisting that there
>>> has to be a reason other than no such machine can exist.
>>>
>>> The non-existance of any machine H that meets the requirements is NOT
>>> a "problem" for the system, non-computable questions exist all the time.
>>>
>>> The fact that there exists a correct answer for every individual
>>> question about a specific input, means the question and problem are
>>> "correct" and "Valid"
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And in fact, it MUST get some answers incorrect, as there is no
>>>>> design of an H that gives the correct answer for the H^ built on it.
>>>>
>>>> Sure there is.
>>>> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
>>>> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
>>>> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
>>>> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> ZF establish as a requrement to use the system that no set can
>>> contain itself. It didn't say you couldn't try to make a set a member
>>> of its self, just not in a Formal System based on ZF.
>>>
>>> In the same way, if you want to try to create your own NEW formal
>>> system with such a rule, go ahead. Then you need to show how it works.
>>>
>>> I think your biggest problem is to define what you actually mean,
>>> since in all the problems you have been talking about, the the
>>> claimed "epistemological antinomy" isn't in the problem statement
>>> itself, but arises later in working on the system. Thus, how can you
>>> tell if a problem is "valid" until you fully explore it.
>>>
>>> Basically, you are going to need to restrict your logic system to not
>>> allow any form of "reference", as that seems to be what is needed to
>>> avoid the ability to form such a condition. That makes your logic
>>> system just too weak to be useful for most things.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> True for proven to halt on its input and false for everything else.
>>>
>>> Which means a H that return false all the time is correct (or even
>>> most of the time, handling the simplest cases correctly) would be a
>>> "Correct" Halt Decider.
>>>
>>> Truth is NOT about what we KNOW, but about what IS.
>>>
>>> So, you are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what truth
>>> is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
>>>>>> report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
>>>>>> within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
>>>>>> contradict) whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>> *This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, H^ contradicts H not H^, thus it is not
>>>>> *SELF*-Contradictiory, but
>>>>> H-Contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
>>>> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving you are a pathological liar not knowing what
>>>>> the word "self" means.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. We have been over this again and again.
>>>> A TM does not typically call another TM instead of calling
>>>> this other TM it simply embeds the states of this other TM
>>>> within itself.
>>>
>>> Right, so what H^ is contrary to is not ITSELF, but a piece of itself.
>>>
>>
>> So when you stab yourself in the leg you didn't actually stab yourself
>> at all?
>>
>
> Of course I do, because I exist.
>

So a Turing machine that gets the wrong answer doesn't exist?

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

On 2/28/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/24 12:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> // States labeled with H are the Linz hypothetical halt decider
>>>>>>> // ∞ represents an infinite loop appended to H
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Within the assumption that the input to the above H represents
>>>>>>> the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and the above H is an aspect
>>>>>>> of the computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then the above H is reporting
>>>>>>> on its own computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since the logic is being done within an unproved assumption,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the same assumption that you and everyone else insisted was
>>>>> correct. The params to embedded H represent tat actual computation of
>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, ASSUMEING THAT SUCH AN INPUT EXISTS.
>>>>
>>>> If H itself is just hypothetical, so is anything built from it.
>>>>
>>>> So, if H doesn't actually exist, neither does H^
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> any contradiction shows the assumption to be incorrect, not the
>>>>>> problem or the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we assume that H is a termination analyzer implemented as
>>>>>>> a Turing Machine then it still exists even when it gets some
>>>>>>> inputs incorrectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are admitting that your H might get some answers incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong with EXAMINIG the problem, just insisting that there
>>>> has to be a reason other than no such machine can exist.
>>>>
>>>> The non-existance of any machine H that meets the requirements is
>>>> NOT a "problem" for the system, non-computable questions exist all
>>>> the time.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that there exists a correct answer for every individual
>>>> question about a specific input, means the question and problem are
>>>> "correct" and "Valid"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And in fact, it MUST get some answers incorrect, as there is no
>>>>>> design of an H that gives the correct answer for the H^ built on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure there is.
>>>>> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
>>>>> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
>>>>> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
>>>>> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> ZF establish as a requrement to use the system that no set can
>>>> contain itself. It didn't say you couldn't try to make a set a
>>>> member of its self, just not in a Formal System based on ZF.
>>>>
>>>> In the same way, if you want to try to create your own NEW formal
>>>> system with such a rule, go ahead. Then you need to show how it works.
>>>>
>>>> I think your biggest problem is to define what you actually mean,
>>>> since in all the problems you have been talking about, the the
>>>> claimed "epistemological antinomy" isn't in the problem statement
>>>> itself, but arises later in working on the system. Thus, how can you
>>>> tell if a problem is "valid" until you fully explore it.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, you are going to need to restrict your logic system to
>>>> not allow any form of "reference", as that seems to be what is
>>>> needed to avoid the ability to form such a condition. That makes
>>>> your logic system just too weak to be useful for most things.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True for proven to halt on its input and false for everything else.
>>>>
>>>> Which means a H that return false all the time is correct (or even
>>>> most of the time, handling the simplest cases correctly) would be a
>>>> "Correct" Halt Decider.
>>>>
>>>> Truth is NOT about what we KNOW, but about what IS.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what
>>>> truth is.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can see that the above termination analyzer H cannot correctly
>>>>>>> report on the behavior of the computation that it is contained
>>>>>>> within ONLY because Ĥ was defined to do the opposite of (thus
>>>>>>> contradict) whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>>> *This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, H^ contradicts H not H^, thus it is not
>>>>>> *SELF*-Contradictiory, but
>>>>>> H-Contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
>>>>> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving you are a pathological liar not knowing what
>>>>>> the word "self" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. We have been over this again and again.
>>>>> A TM does not typically call another TM instead of calling
>>>>> this other TM it simply embeds the states of this other TM
>>>>> within itself.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so what H^ is contrary to is not ITSELF, but a piece of itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So when you stab yourself in the leg you didn't actually stab
>>> yourself at all?
>>>
>>
>> Of course I do, because I exist.
>>
>
> So a Turing machine that gets the wrong answer doesn't exist?
>

No, a Turing Macine that gets the RIGHT answer to a non-computable
problem doesn't exist.

What make you think anyone was impling that an incorrect Turing machine
wouldn't exist.

An H that doesn't give the right answer, isn't the H in the proof, since
that started with the assumption that it gets the right answer.

If no machine can do that, then the presumed H can't exist.

On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>
>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?

you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject

>>> Sure there is.
>>> ZFC conquered Russell's paradox by excluding self-referential sets
>>> (that formed epistemological antinomies) from the problem domain.
>>> This same solution can be adapted to every decision problem that
>>> is anchored in an epistemological antinomy.
>>
>> Turing conquered the Halting Problem by excluding halting deciders
>> (that formed epistemological antimonies) from the domain of Turing
>> machines.

you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject

>>> Ĥ contradicts its own internal state that is named H for convenience.
>>> So Ĥ is self-contradictory.
>>
>> int f() {
>>      int what_does_f_return = 2;
>>      return 1;
>> }
>>
>> This program contradicts its own internal state. It is
>> self-contradictory, right?

you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject

>>> The specific error with the notion of undecidability is
>>> that it does not exclude epistemological antinomies from
>>> the problem domain.
>>
>> Every Turing machine/input pair is not an epistemological antinomy.

you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject

>>
>>> Epistemological antinomies are not truth bearers and have
>>> no truth value.
>>
>> The halting status of every Turing machine/input pair has a truth value.

you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject

>>> This is about Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ is self contradictory because it is defined to
>>> contradict every value that its internal H returns.
>>
>> f is defined to contradict every value that its internal
>> what_does_f_return holds, does that mean it is self contradictory?

you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject

>>> Then why does professor Hehner agree with me that there is something
>>> wrong with the halting problem?
>>
>> he doesn't
>>
>
> Professor Hehner:
>
> This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
> Stoddart:
>
> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
> something wrong with it.
>
> Is this an accurate assessment?
>
> <Professor Hehner>
> *Yes, I would sign that statement.*
> </Professor Hehner>
>

vague statements are meaningless

On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>
>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>
> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject

It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.

>> Professor Hehner:
>>
>> This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
>> Stoddart:
>>
>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>> something wrong with it.
>>
>> Is this an accurate assessment?
>>
>> <Professor Hehner>
>> *Yes, I would sign that statement.*
>> </Professor Hehner>
>>
>
> vague statements are meaningless

The term meaningless is a misnomer:
having no meaning:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/meaningless

It is true that vague statements have less meaning it is
not true that vague statements have zero meaning.

"I am going to the store to buy something." has less
meaning than "I am going to Walmart to buy ice cream".

That professor Hehner agrees that there is something wrong
with the halting problem narrows the scope of interpretation
of his work. It proves that he directly disagrees with the
received view.

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

On 29/02/24 16:48, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>
>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>
> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.

You say H^ is a TM so show me the TM. You can't show me the TM because
it doesn't exist. You tried, but x86utm isn't a TM. You say that even
though it doesn't exist, it gets the wrong answer.

>>> Professor Hehner:
>>>
>>> This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
>>> Stoddart:
>>>
>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>> something wrong with it.
>>>
>>> Is this an accurate assessment?
>>>
>>> <Professor Hehner>
>>> *Yes, I would sign that statement.*
>>> </Professor Hehner>
>>>
>>
>> vague statements are meaningless
>
> The term meaningless is a misnomer:
> having no meaning:
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/meaningless

"something wrong with it" has no meaning in this context.

On 29/02/24 16:48, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>
>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>
> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.
>
>>> Professor Hehner:
>>>
>>> This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
>>> Stoddart:
>>>
>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>> something wrong with it.
>>>
>>> Is this an accurate assessment?
>>>
>>> <Professor Hehner>
>>> *Yes, I would sign that statement.*
>>> </Professor Hehner>
>>>
>>
>> vague statements are meaningless
>
> The term meaningless is a misnomer:
> having no meaning:
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/meaningless
>
> It is true that vague statements have less meaning it is
> not true that vague statements have zero meaning.
>
> "I am going to the store to buy something." has less
> meaning than "I am going to Walmart to buy ice cream".
>
> That professor Hehner agrees that there is something wrong
> with the halting problem narrows the scope of interpretation
> of his work. It proves that he directly disagrees with the
> received view.
>
you also dishonestly ignored several other points and changed the subject

On 2/29/2024 9:58 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 29/02/24 16:48, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>>
>>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>>
>> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
>> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.
>
> You say H^ is a TM so show me the TM. You can't show me the TM because
> it doesn't exist. You tried, but x86utm isn't a TM. You say that even
> though it doesn't exist, it gets the wrong answer.

You continue to assert that TM's that get the wrong answers
don't exist.

>>>> Professor Hehner:
>>>>
>>>> This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
>>>> Stoddart:
>>>>
>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>
>>>> Is this an accurate assessment?
>>>>
>>>> <Professor Hehner>
>>>> *Yes, I would sign that statement.*
>>>> </Professor Hehner>
>>>>
>>>
>>> vague statements are meaningless
>>
>> The term meaningless is a misnomer:
>> having no meaning:
>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/meaningless
>
> "something wrong with it" has no meaning in this context.
You know that is false. Something wrong with it has vague meaning in
this context. "5980 m, srgfjko kpfnkds" has no meaning in this context.

*Here is what is wrong with it*
The error of the halting problem specification is that it
expects self-contradictory questions to have correct answers.

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

On 2/29/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>
>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>
> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.

It does if the assumption was that it MUST get the right answer.

The assumed Turing Machine that gets the right answer doesn't exist of
no instance of a Turing Machine answers that condition correctly.

>
>>> Professor Hehner:
>>>
>>> This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
>>> Stoddart:
>>>
>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>> something wrong with it.
>>>
>>> Is this an accurate assessment?
>>>
>>> <Professor Hehner>
>>> *Yes, I would sign that statement.*
>>> </Professor Hehner>
>>>
>>
>> vague statements are meaningless
>
> The term meaningless is a misnomer:
> having no meaning:
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/meaningless
>
> It is true that vague statements have less meaning it is
> not true that vague statements have zero meaning.
>
> "I am going to the store to buy something." has less
> meaning than "I am going to Walmart to buy ice cream".
>
> That professor Hehner agrees that there is something wrong
> with the halting problem narrows the scope of interpretation
> of his work. It proves that he directly disagrees with the
> received view.
>

On 2/29/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>>
>>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>>
>> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
>> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.
>
> It does if the assumption was that it MUST get the right answer.
>
> The assumed Turing Machine that gets the right answer doesn't exist of
> no instance of a Turing Machine answers that condition correctly.
>

Sure there is nothing wrong with that.

immibis seemed to be saying something like we cannot
even examine why a Turing Machine that gets the right
answer doesn't exist because no such machine exists.
immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll

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

On 2/29/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/29/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>>>
>>>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>>>
>>> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
>>> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.
>>
>> It does if the assumption was that it MUST get the right answer.
>>
>> The assumed Turing Machine that gets the right answer doesn't exist of
>> no instance of a Turing Machine answers that condition correctly.
>>
>
> Sure there is nothing wrong with that.
>
> immibis seemed to be saying something like we cannot
> even examine why a Turing Machine that gets the right
> answer doesn't exist because no such machine exists.
> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>
>

The point is that the non-existance of such a machine doesn't NEED a
reason, the fact that it doesn't exist means it doesn't exist.

And finding a reason it doesn't exist doesn't make its non-existance
wrong or improper.

On 2/29/2024 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?

>> you dishonestly refused to answer this
>> and changed the subject
>
> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that
> because a TM gets the wrong answer
> this causes it to not exist.

The answer to
| Is there a right triangle with
| sides in the ratio 2:3:4 ?
is not
| You have asked a wrong question.
Its answer is
| No.

It is because
a TM gets the wrong answer
that the\at TM is not
a TM which gets the right answer,

It is because each TM is not
a TM which gets the right answer
that
a TM which gets the right answer
not.exists.

Q. Is there
a TM which gets the right answer?

A. No.

On 2/29/2024 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/29/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not
>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>>>>
>>>>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>>>>
>>>> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
>>>> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.
>>>
>>> It does if the assumption was that it MUST get the right answer.
>>>
>>> The assumed Turing Machine that gets the right answer doesn't exist
>>> of no instance of a Turing Machine answers that condition correctly.
>>>
>>
>> Sure there is nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> immibis seemed to be saying something like we cannot
>> even examine why a Turing Machine that gets the right
>> answer doesn't exist because no such machine exists.
>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>
>>
>
> The point is that the non-existance of such a machine doesn't NEED a
> reason, the fact that it doesn't exist means it doesn't exist.
>

Nutty circular reasoning.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
There is a reason why Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.

> And finding a reason it doesn't exist doesn't make its non-existance
> wrong or improper.

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

On 3/1/2024 12:41 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>
>
>
>>> you dishonestly refused to answer this
>>> and changed the subject
>>
>> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that
>> because a TM gets the wrong answer
>> this causes it to not exist.
>
> The answer to
> | Is there a right triangle with
> | sides in the ratio 2:3:4 ?
>  is not
> | You have asked a wrong question.
>  Its answer is
> | No.
>
> It is because
> a TM gets the wrong answer
> that the\at TM is not
> a TM which gets the right answer,
>
> It is because each TM is not
> a TM which gets the right answer
> that
> a TM which gets the right answer
> not.exists.
>
> Q. Is there
> a TM which gets the right answer?
>
> A. No.
>
>

My new view is simply that the counter example
input does not thwart a correct halt decision by Linz H.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H
is able to correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

H simply looks for whatever wrong answer that Ĥ.H
returns and reports on the halting or not halting
behavior of that.

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

On 29/02/24 18:00, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 9:58 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 29/02/24 16:48, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>>>
>>>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>>>
>>> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
>>> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.
>>
>> You say H^ is a TM so show me the TM. You can't show me the TM because
>> it doesn't exist. You tried, but x86utm isn't a TM. You say that even
>> though it doesn't exist, it gets the wrong answer.
>
> You continue to assert that TM's that get the wrong answers
> don't exist.
>
>>>>> Professor Hehner:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my summation of your work and the work of professor
>>>>> Stoddart:
>>>>>
>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this an accurate assessment?
>>>>>
>>>>> <Professor Hehner>
>>>>> *Yes, I would sign that statement.*
>>>>> </Professor Hehner>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> vague statements are meaningless
>>>
>>> The term meaningless is a misnomer:
>>> having no meaning:
>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/meaningless
>>
>> "something wrong with it" has no meaning in this context.
> You know that is false. Something wrong with it has vague meaning in
> this context. "5980 m, srgfjko kpfnkds" has no meaning in this context.
>
> *Here is what is wrong with it*
> The error of the halting problem specification is that it
> expects self-contradictory questions to have correct answers.
>

Questions of the form "Does this Turing machine halt?" are NEVER
self-contradictory because a sequence is never finite and infinite at
the same time.

On 1/03/24 07:50, olcott wrote:
> My new view is simply that the counter example
> input does not thwart a correct halt decision by Linz H.

In other words, demonstrating an input which Linz H gets wrong does not
prove that there exists an input which Linz H gets wrong.

This is ten times more delusional than whatever you were saying before.

On 3/1/24 1:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/29/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:32 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/02/24 22:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:18 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/02/24 06:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I am trying to overcome your ridiculous notion that we cannot
>>>>>>>>> even examine why a TM got the wrong answer because it does not
>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can a TM that does not exist get a wrong answer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you dishonestly refused to answer this and changed the subject
>>>>>
>>>>> It is your stupid mistake to conclude that because a TM gets
>>>>> the wrong answer this causes it to not exist.
>>>>
>>>> It does if the assumption was that it MUST get the right answer.
>>>>
>>>> The assumed Turing Machine that gets the right answer doesn't exist
>>>> of no instance of a Turing Machine answers that condition correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure there is nothing wrong with that.
>>>
>>> immibis seemed to be saying something like we cannot
>>> even examine why a Turing Machine that gets the right
>>> answer doesn't exist because no such machine exists.
>>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The point is that the non-existance of such a machine doesn't NEED a
>> reason, the fact that it doesn't exist means it doesn't exist.
>>
>
> Nutty circular reasoning.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn     // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
> There is a reason why Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.

So? There doesn't NEED to be one.

Fallacy of proof by example.

>
>> And finding a reason it doesn't exist doesn't make its non-existance
>> wrong or improper.
>

On 3/1/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-01 04:27:43 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> immibis has to some degree proven to be a bit of a Troll
>
> But not any useful dgree. If you really want to see a troll
> you need a mirror.
>

It may seem that way to someone that does not fully
understand what I am saying.

My process is defined below:
*The Science of Genius* BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)

Using a mixture of historical analyses, laboratory
experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models
and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years to
developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
genius in all domains.

The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
without foresight into their eventual utility. The creator
must engage in trial-and-error or generate-and-test procedures
to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena
characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and backtracking.
Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
to an earlier approach after blindly going off in the wrong
direction.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/

*Another key aspect of my process*
"First principles thinking" (or "reasoning from first principles") is a
problem-solving technique that requires you to break down a complex
problem into its most basic, foundational elements. The idea: to ground
yourself in the foundational truths and build up from there.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-principles-thinking-sahil-bloom/

In other words one must begin by ignoring what anyone else
has ever said about a problem and start from complete scratch.

When I did this I found that certain terms of the art had
subtle misconceptions built in to them. When I redefine these
terms of the art to eliminate these misconceptions people
mistakenly believed that I simply did not get the meaning
of these terms correctly. This is partly my fault I should
have always said that I am referring to the Olcott version.

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