On 3/12/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 3:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/03/24 21:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>>> question.
>>>
>>> An instance of an incorrect question is an instance with no correct
>>> answer, but all of the instances you seem to be referring to have
>>> correct answers.
>>
>> Only when you cheat and refer to a different decider/input pair
>> than the ones specified above.
>>
>> The ones specified above include pairs of machines that only differ
>> by return value.
>>
>>
>
> But the question you are looking at doesn't depend on the decider,

Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
value of its decider.

That both of these decider/input pairs get the wrong answer proves
that their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
same question is also proven to be 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 3/12/24 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn (I
>>>>>> forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So it
>>>>>> predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any
>>>>>> decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both
>>>>>> wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all
>>>>>> have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>
>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>
>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>> question.
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>> questions.
>>>
>>
>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior, and
>> thus a correct answer,
>
> From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.
>

Nope.

Your logic says that if I form a set of Decider / Input pairs for ANY
question, where all the deciders get the wrong answer, the quesiton is
invalid.

That is silly.

You need to look at all possible TMs and a given input, to see if any
can give the answer, which it can, so each indivdual question is valid,
and thus the whole set of the question is valid.

The fact that you can't find a machine that gives you all the right
answer says it is uncomputable, not invalid.

You don't seem to know the difference, just like you don't know the
difference between True and Provable.

On 12/03/24 21:59, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 3:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/03/24 21:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>
>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>
>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>> question.
>>
>> An instance of an incorrect question is an instance with no correct
>> answer, but all of the instances you seem to be referring to have
>> correct answers.
>
> Only when you cheat and refer to a different decider/input pair
> than the ones specified above.
>
> The ones specified above include pairs of machines that only differ
> by return value.

If both of them return YES or NO and they both return different values
on the same input then one of those values is correct.

On 3/12/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn
>>>>>>> (I forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So
>>>>>>> it predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any
>>>>>>> decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both
>>>>>>> wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all
>>>>>>> have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>>> questions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior, and
>>> thus a correct answer,
>>
>>  From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
>> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
>> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Your logic says that if I form a set of Decider / Input pairs for ANY
> question, where all the deciders get the wrong answer, the quesiton is
> invalid.
>
Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
value of its decider.

That both of these decider/input pairs get the wrong answer proves
that their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
same question is also proven to be incorrect.

This perfectly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
(thus polar) question where both yes and no are the wrong answer.

> That is silly.
>
> You need to look at all possible TMs and a given input, to see if any
> can give the answer, which it can, so each indivdual question is valid,
> and thus the whole set of the question is valid.
>
That is merely yet another attempt at the strawman deception.

> The fact that you can't find a machine that gives you all the right
> answer says it is uncomputable, not invalid.
>
The same way that no CAD system can draw a square circle is uncomputable
(logical impossibility) halting is also uncomputable

> You don't seem to know the difference, just like you don't know the
> difference between True and Provable.

That is a difference that I and Wittgenstein understand and most
of the rest of the world does not understand.

I was wrong about Saul Kripke he understood the basis of this too.
Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke (1975)
https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf

When the truth of an expression is ungrounded that means
it lacks a truthmaker. This is elaborated in more detail
in truthmaker maximalism.

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

On 3/12/2024 4:48 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/03/24 21:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 3:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/03/24 21:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>>> question.
>>>
>>> An instance of an incorrect question is an instance with no correct
>>> answer, but all of the instances you seem to be referring to have
>>> correct answers.
>>
>> Only when you cheat and refer to a different decider/input pair
>> than the ones specified above.
>>
>> The ones specified above include pairs of machines that only differ
>> by return value.
>
> If both of them return YES or NO and they both return different values
> on the same input then one of those values is correct.
>

Every decider/input pair *referenced in the above set* has a
corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
value of its decider.

That both of these decider/input pairs get the wrong answer proves
that their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
same question is also proven to be 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 12/03/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior, and
>> thus a correct answer,
>
> From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.

What the fuck are you talking about? If there's a correct answer, it is
completely irrelevant which TM gives the answer. The fact that Little
Timmy says 2+2=5 does not change the fact that 4 is the correct answer.

On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn (I
>>>> forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So it
>>>> predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any decider
>>>> gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both wrong
>>>> answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all have only
>>>> wrong answers?
>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>
>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>
>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>
> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
> question.
>
> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
> questions.
>

Nope.

Lets break it down.

FIRST, we go through each of the H's due to:

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders

Then for Each of them we find that we can find an input, that might be a
different input of each decider: (The H^ from that H is one such input)

∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions

The Results of which, that decider give a wrong answer for that input:

Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

Note, in EVERY case, the INPUT does have a correct behavior as returned
by Actual_Behavior(TMD)

On 3/12/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn
>>>>>>>> (I forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So
>>>>>>>> it predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any
>>>>>>>> decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were
>>>>>>>> both wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So
>>>>>>>> they all have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>>>> question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>>>> questions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior, and
>>>> thus a correct answer,
>>>
>>>  From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
>>> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
>>> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Your logic says that if I form a set of Decider / Input pairs for ANY
>> question, where all the deciders get the wrong answer, the quesiton is
>> invalid.
>>
> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
> value of its decider.

Nope, nothing says that two deciders are paired with the same input.

A new input is selected for EACH decider, and the "pathological" one
shown, depends on the decider chosen, so all WILL be different.

>
> That both of these decider/input pairs get the wrong answer proves
> that their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
> same question is also proven to be incorrect.

Except there is no pairing

>
> This perfectly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
> (thus polar) question where both yes and no are the wrong answer.

Nope, perfectly meets the definition of a Strawman and a LIE.

Every TMD that can be chosen HAS a correct value for
Actual_Behavior(TMD), so every question has an answer that can be given
by some Turing Machine Deciders, so is a valid question.

The fact that THIS machine doesn't give it, just makes it wrong.

>
>> That is silly.
>>
>> You need to look at all possible TMs and a given input, to see if any
>> can give the answer, which it can, so each indivdual question is
>> valid, and thus the whole set of the question is valid.
>>
> That is merely yet another attempt at the strawman deception.

Why? That's the DEFINITION of a Valid or Invalid question.

YOU are the one building Strawmen, because you never bothered to learn
the rules.

>
>> The fact that you can't find a machine that gives you all the right
>> answer says it is uncomputable, not invalid.
>>
> The same way that no CAD system can draw a square circle is uncomputable
> (logical impossibility) halting is also uncomputable

Nope.
CAD systems can't draw a square circle because it is definitionally
impossible.

Halting Can't be decided, because it just happens that this map can't be
computed.

>
>> You don't seem to know the difference, just like you don't know the
>> difference between True and Provable.
>
> That is a difference that I and Wittgenstein understand and most
> of the rest of the world does not understand.

Nope, you hitched your horse to the side that finally admitted it lost.
There may be a few hold out still, but it has been conceeded,

>
> I was wrong about Saul Kripke he understood the basis of this too.
> Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke (1975)
> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>
> When the truth of an expression is ungrounded that means
> it lacks a truthmaker. This is elaborated in more detail
> in truthmaker maximalism.
>
>

But that doesn't say there are not truths that are grounded but beyond
the reach of provability, due to the link being non-finite.

On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn (I
>>>>> forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So it
>>>>> predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any decider
>>>>> gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both wrong
>>>>> answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all have
>>>>> only wrong answers?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>
>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>
>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>
>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>> question.
>>
>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>> questions.
>>
>
> Nope.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
Who shaves the barber <is> tossed out as an incorrect question.

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

On 3/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/12/24 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are
>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn
>>>>>>>>> (I forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states).
>>>>>>>>> So it predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time
>>>>>>>>> any decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO
>>>>>>>>> were both wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong.
>>>>>>>>> So they all have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about
>>>>>>> the ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an
>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior, and
>>>>> thus a correct answer,
>>>>
>>>>  From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
>>>> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
>>>> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Your logic says that if I form a set of Decider / Input pairs for ANY
>>> question, where all the deciders get the wrong answer, the quesiton
>>> is invalid.
>>>
>> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
>> value of its decider.
>
> Nope, nothing says that two deciders are paired with the same input.
>

I keep forgetting the a decider is not a machine that makes
at least one decision correctly the meaning that the whole
rest of the world uses for everything else.

If anyone has ever made at least one decision about anything
then they are a decider(common).

> A new input is selected for EACH decider, and the "pathological" one
> shown, depends on the decider chosen, so all WILL be different.
>

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
value of its Boolean_TM.

That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that
their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
same question is also proven to be incorrect.

<snip>

>> The same way that no CAD system can draw a square circle is uncomputable
>> (logical impossibility) halting is also uncomputable
>
> Nope.
> CAD systems can't draw a square circle because it is definitionally
> impossible.
>
> Halting Can't be decided, because it just happens that this map can't be
> computed.

No it is also definitionally impossible the same way that
all logically impossible things are definitionally impossible.

>>
>>> You don't seem to know the difference, just like you don't know the
>>> difference between True and Provable.
>>
>> That is a difference that I and Wittgenstein understand and most
>> of the rest of the world does not understand.
>
> Nope, you hitched your horse to the side that finally admitted it lost.
> There may be a few hold out still, but it has been conceeded,
>
>>
>> I was wrong about Saul Kripke he understood the basis of this too.
>> Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke (1975)
>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>
>> When the truth of an expression is ungrounded that means
>> it lacks a truthmaker. This is elaborated in more detail
>> in truthmaker maximalism.
>>
>>
>
> But that doesn't say there are not truths that are grounded but beyond
> the reach of provability, due to the link being non-finite.

*No but it does say that this is flat out wrong*
....14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

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

On 3/12/24 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn (I
>>>>>> forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So it
>>>>>> predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any
>>>>>> decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both
>>>>>> wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all
>>>>>> have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>
>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>
>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>> question.
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>> questions.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
> Who shaves the barber <is> tossed out as an incorrect question.
>

So?

You haven't actually shown that we have a paradox set, and in fact, ZFC
prevents it.

You aren't using the sets that the statement defines, so of course you
are getting the wrong answer.

On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn (I
>>>> forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So it
>>>> predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any decider
>>>> gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both wrong
>>>> answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all have only
>>>> wrong answers?
>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>
>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>
>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>
> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
> question.
>
> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
> questions.
>

Nope.

Lets break it down.

FIRST, we go through each of the H's due to:

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders

Then for Each of them we find that we can find an input, that might be a
different input of each decider: (The H^ from that H is one such input)

∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions

The Results of which, that decider give a wrong answer for that input:

Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

Note, in EVERY case, the INPUT does have a correct behavior as returned
by Actual_Behavior(TMD)

On 3/12/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn (I
>>>>> forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So it
>>>>> predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any decider
>>>>> gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both wrong
>>>>> answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all have
>>>>> only wrong answers?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>
>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>
>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>
>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>> question.
>>
>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>> questions.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Lets break it down.
>

*You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
*You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
*You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
*You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*

> FIRST, we go through each of the H's due to:
>
> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>
> Then for Each of them we find that we can find an input, that might be a
> different input of each decider: (The H^ from that H is one such input)
>
> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions
>
> The Results of which, that decider give a wrong answer for that input:
>
> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>
> Note, in EVERY case, the INPUT does have a correct behavior as returned
> by Actual_Behavior(TMD)

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

On 3/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn
>>>>>>> (I forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So
>>>>>>> it predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any
>>>>>>> decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both
>>>>>>> wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all
>>>>>>> have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>>> questions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
>> Who shaves the barber <is> tossed out as an incorrect question.
>>
>
> So?
>
> You haven't actually shown that we have a paradox set, and in fact, ZFC
> prevents it.
>

Yes and by changing the notion of undecidability to mean
semantically incorrect input we get the exact same results.

> You aren't using the sets that the statement defines, so of course you
> are getting the wrong 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 13/03/24 00:32, olcott wrote:
> *You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*

Russell's paradox has nothing to do with the halting problem because it
is about set theory.

On 3/12/2024 6:38 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 13/03/24 00:32, olcott wrote:
>> *You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
>
> Russell's paradox has nothing to do with the halting problem because it
> is about set theory.

None-the-less it was what Ross Finlayson agreed to when
he agreed that ZFC rejected an incorrect question.

On 3/12/2024 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
> questions.
>

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

On 13/03/24 00:59, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 6:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/03/24 00:32, olcott wrote:
>>> *You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
>>
>> Russell's paradox has nothing to do with the halting problem because
>> it is about set theory.
>
> None-the-less it was what Ross Finlayson agreed to when
> he agreed that ZFC rejected an incorrect question.
>
> On 3/12/2024 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
> > questions.
> >

That 1+1=2 and your grandson is also 2 does not mean that 1+1 is your
grandson.

On 3/12/24 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/24 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are
>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state
>>>>>>>>>> qn (I forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final
>>>>>>>>>> states). So it predicts NO to every input. You're saying that
>>>>>>>>>> any time any decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES
>>>>>>>>>> and NO were both wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. So they all have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about
>>>>>>>> the ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an
>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior,
>>>>>> and thus a correct answer,
>>>>>
>>>>>  From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
>>>>> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
>>>>> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Your logic says that if I form a set of Decider / Input pairs for
>>>> ANY question, where all the deciders get the wrong answer, the
>>>> quesiton is invalid.
>>>>
>>> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
>>> value of its decider.
>>
>> Nope, nothing says that two deciders are paired with the same input.
>>
>
> I keep forgetting the a decider is not a machine that makes
> at least one decision correctly the meaning that the whole
> rest of the world uses for everything else.

Yep, you TOTALLY don't understand the technical meaning of the word.

To be just a "Decider", it need to answer all inputs.

To be a "Foo Decider" it needs to answer ALL input correctly about Foo.

You are just proving you don't understand the technical use of language.

>
> If anyone has ever made at least one decision about anything
> then they are a decider(common).

Which means if you say ONE LIE, you are a LIAR.

>
>> A new input is selected for EACH decider, and the "pathological" one
>> shown, depends on the decider chosen, so all WILL be different.
>>
>
> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>
> Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
> corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
> value of its Boolean_TM.

Nope, and since you have been told this is wrong and not fixed it makes
you now and FOREVER MORE, just a liar.

In fact, by the proof that preceeded it, every H is paired with a
DIFFERENT input.

>
> That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that
> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
> same question is also proven to be incorrect.

Which is why H and ~H can't get paired with the same input by that
selection function.

Just proving that because you made that claim, that you are an idiot.

>
> <snip>
>
>>> The same way that no CAD system can draw a square circle is uncomputable
>>> (logical impossibility) halting is also uncomputable
>>
>> Nope.
>> CAD systems can't draw a square circle because it is definitionally
>> impossible.
>>
>> Halting Can't be decided, because it just happens that this map can't
>> be computed.
>
> No it is also definitionally impossible the same way that
> all logically impossible things are definitionally impossible.
>

Nope. There are LOTS of maps to try to be computaed that are in fact
compuatble. The Halting Mapping just doesn't happen to be one of them.
It is not, by the form (syntax) of the problem, impossible, but turns
out be by the details (semantics) to end not not being computable.

These are DIFFERENT classes of impossible.

On 3/12/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> You haven't actually shown that we have a paradox set, and in fact,
>> ZFC prevents it.
>>
>
> Yes and by changing the notion of undecidability to mean
> semantically incorrect input we get the exact same results.

That seems to be your habit, trying to just LIE and redefine terms and
then still try to be in the same logic system.

That just shows how little you understand what you are talking about.

>
>> You aren't using the sets that the statement defines, so of course you
>> are getting the wrong answer.
>

On 3/12/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual
>>>>>>>> behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong
>>>>>>>> answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state qn (I
>>>>>> forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final states). So it
>>>>>> predicts NO to every input. You're saying that any time any
>>>>>> decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES and NO were both
>>>>>> wrong answers. My decider gets lots of inputs wrong. So they all
>>>>>> have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>
>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about the
>>>> ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>
>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an incorrect
>>> question.
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these incorrect
>>> questions.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Lets break it down.
>>
>
> *You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
> *You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
> *You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*
> *You keep changing the subject away from Russell's Paradox*

WHAT RUSELLS PARADOX,

you were talking about the following:

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

Which has nothing to do with Russell's Paradox.

How stupid are you?

Russell's paradox is about a set containing itself only if it doesn't
contain itself.

Nothing here is talking about constructing a new set, only using two
well defined sets, the set of all Turing Machine Deciders, and the set
of all Turing Machine Descriptions

>
>> FIRST, we go through each of the H's due to:
>>
>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>
>> Then for Each of them we find that we can find an input, that might be
>> a different input of each decider: (The H^ from that H is one such input)
>>
>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions
>>
>> The Results of which, that decider give a wrong answer for that input:
>>
>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>
>> Note, in EVERY case, the INPUT does have a correct behavior as
>> returned by Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>

On 3/12/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/12/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/24 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state
>>>>>>>>>>> qn (I forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final
>>>>>>>>>>> states). So it predicts NO to every input. You're saying that
>>>>>>>>>>> any time any decider gets any input wrong, it was because YES
>>>>>>>>>>> and NO were both wrong answers. My decider gets lots of
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs wrong. So they all have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about
>>>>>>>>> the ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an
>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these
>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior,
>>>>>>> and thus a correct answer,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
>>>>>> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
>>>>>> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your logic says that if I form a set of Decider / Input pairs for
>>>>> ANY question, where all the deciders get the wrong answer, the
>>>>> quesiton is invalid.
>>>>>
>>>> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
>>>> value of its decider.
>>>
>>> Nope, nothing says that two deciders are paired with the same input.
>>>
>>
>> I keep forgetting the a decider is not a machine that makes
>> at least one decision correctly the meaning that the whole
>> rest of the world uses for everything else.
>
> Yep, you TOTALLY don't understand the technical meaning of the word.
>
> To be just a "Decider", it need to answer all inputs.
>
Then you were incorrect to say that there cannot be a pair of
otherwise identical deciders that differ only by their return value
as I just proved in complete detail to immblis.

> To be a "Foo Decider" it needs to answer ALL input correctly about Foo.
>
> You are just proving you don't understand the technical use of language.
>>
>> If anyone has ever made at least one decision about anything
>> then they are a decider(common).
>
> Which means if you say ONE LIE, you are a LIAR.
>
That is not the conventional meaning otherwise everyone is a liar.

>>
>>> A new input is selected for EACH decider, and the "pathological" one
>>> shown, depends on the decider chosen, so all WILL be different.
>>>
>>
>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>
>> Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>> corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
>> value of its Boolean_TM.
>
> Nope, and since you have been told this is wrong and not fixed it makes
> you now and FOREVER MORE, just a liar.
>
I just proved this in complete detail to immblis.
That you disagree with easily verified facts does not make me a liar.

> In fact, by the proof that preceeded it, every H is paired with a
> DIFFERENT input.
>
Two machines that differ only be return value
can be provided identical finite strings as input.

>>
>> That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that
>> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
>> same question is also proven to be incorrect.
>
> Which is why H and ~H can't get paired with the same input by that
> selection function.
>
> Just proving that because you made that claim, that you are an idiot.
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The same way that no CAD system can draw a square circle is
>>>> uncomputable
>>>> (logical impossibility) halting is also uncomputable
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>> CAD systems can't draw a square circle because it is definitionally
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> Halting Can't be decided, because it just happens that this map can't
>>> be computed.
>>
>> No it is also definitionally impossible the same way that
>> all logically impossible things are definitionally impossible.
>>
>
> Nope. There are LOTS of maps to try to be computaed that are in fact
> compuatble. The Halting Mapping just doesn't happen to be one of them.
> It is not, by the form (syntax) of the problem, impossible, but turns
> out be by the details (semantics) to end not not being computable.
>
> These are DIFFERENT classes of impossible.
>
All logical impossibilities are equally impossible and
semantically the equivalent.

On 3/12/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> You haven't actually shown that we have a paradox set, and in fact,
>>> ZFC prevents it.
>>>
>>
>> Yes and by changing the notion of undecidability to mean
>> semantically incorrect input we get the exact same results.
>
> That seems to be your habit, trying to just LIE and redefine terms and
> then still try to be in the same logic system.
>
I am doing the same thing that ZFC did to Naive set theory.
My new foundation for computation (NFFC).

*It is pretty ridiculous that you keep mistaking new ideas for lies*

> That just shows how little you understand what you are talking about.
> >>
>>> You aren't using the sets that the statement defines, so of course
>>> you are getting the wrong 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 13/03/24 02:52, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> You haven't actually shown that we have a paradox set, and in fact,
>>>> ZFC prevents it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes and by changing the notion of undecidability to mean
>>> semantically incorrect input we get the exact same results.
>>
>> That seems to be your habit, trying to just LIE and redefine terms and
>> then still try to be in the same logic system.
>>
> I am doing the same thing that ZFC did to Naive set theory.
> My new foundation for computation (NFFC).
>

You want to say that some ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ aren't real Turing
machines, right? Just like Russell said that some {x|P(x)} aren't real sets?

On 3/12/2024 9:18 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 13/03/24 02:52, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/12/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You haven't actually shown that we have a paradox set, and in fact,
>>>>> ZFC prevents it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes and by changing the notion of undecidability to mean
>>>> semantically incorrect input we get the exact same results.
>>>
>>> That seems to be your habit, trying to just LIE and redefine terms
>>> and then still try to be in the same logic system.
>>>
>> I am doing the same thing that ZFC did to Naive set theory.
>> My new foundation for computation (NFFC).
>>
>
> You want to say that some ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ aren't real Turing
> machines, right? Just like Russell said that some {x|P(x)} aren't real
> sets?
>
H(D,D) can simply terminate abnormally like a divide by
zero exception when it detects pathological self-reference.

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

On 3/12/24 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/24 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So when I ask this Turing machine:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states={qy,qn}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start_state={qn}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behaviour is yes, so that means both YES and NO are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong answer, according to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The very simple Turing machine decider always halts in state
>>>>>>>>>>>> qn (I forgot to specify that states qy and qn are final
>>>>>>>>>>>> states). So it predicts NO to every input. You're saying
>>>>>>>>>>>> that any time any decider gets any input wrong, it was
>>>>>>>>>>>> because YES and NO were both wrong answers. My decider gets
>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of inputs wrong. So they all have only wrong answers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES or NO is only the right answer to a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am only referring to the decider/input pairs specified
>>>>>>>>>>> above. You persistently try to get away with referring
>>>>>>>>>>> to DIFFERENT decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you are trying to say you are only talking about
>>>>>>>>>> the ones that are gotten wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer,
>>>>>>>>>> the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above set only refers to the pathological decider/input pairs.
>>>>>>>>> every pathological decider/input pair <is> an instance of an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson seems to agree that ZFC does toss out these
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And for EVERY input in that pair, there is a definite behavior,
>>>>>>>> and thus a correct answer,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From another different TM that is not in the above referenced set.
>>>>>>> *It seems that the strawman deception is all that you have on this*
>>>>>>> That no correct rebuttal exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your logic says that if I form a set of Decider / Input pairs for
>>>>>> ANY question, where all the deciders get the wrong answer, the
>>>>>> quesiton is invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
>>>>> value of its decider.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, nothing says that two deciders are paired with the same input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I keep forgetting the a decider is not a machine that makes
>>> at least one decision correctly the meaning that the whole
>>> rest of the world uses for everything else.
>>
>> Yep, you TOTALLY don't understand the technical meaning of the word.
>>
>> To be just a "Decider", it need to answer all inputs.
>>
> Then you were incorrect to say that there cannot be a pair of
> otherwise identical deciders that differ only by their return value
> as I just proved in complete detail to immblis.
>
>> To be a "Foo Decider" it needs to answer ALL input correctly about Foo.
>>
>> You are just proving you don't understand the technical use of language.
>>>
>>> If anyone has ever made at least one decision about anything
>>> then they are a decider(common).
>>
>> Which means if you say ONE LIE, you are a LIAR.
>>
> That is not the conventional meaning otherwise everyone is a liar.
>
>>>
>>>> A new input is selected for EACH decider, and the "pathological" one
>>>> shown, depends on the decider chosen, so all WILL be different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>
>>> Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
>>> corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
>>> value of its Boolean_TM.
>>
>> Nope, and since you have been told this is wrong and not fixed it
>> makes you now and FOREVER MORE, just a liar.
>>
> I just proved this in complete detail to immblis.
> That you disagree with easily verified facts does not make me a liar.
>
>> In fact, by the proof that preceeded it, every H is paired with a
>> DIFFERENT input.
>>
> Two machines that differ only be return value
> can be provided identical finite strings as input.
>
>>>
>>> That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that
>>> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
>>> same question is also proven to be incorrect.
>>
>> Which is why H and ~H can't get paired with the same input by that
>> selection function.
>>
>> Just proving that because you made that claim, that you are an idiot.
>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> The same way that no CAD system can draw a square circle is
>>>>> uncomputable
>>>>> (logical impossibility) halting is also uncomputable
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>> CAD systems can't draw a square circle because it is definitionally
>>>> impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Halting Can't be decided, because it just happens that this map
>>>> can't be computed.
>>>
>>> No it is also definitionally impossible the same way that
>>> all logically impossible things are definitionally impossible.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. There are LOTS of maps to try to be computaed that are in fact
>> compuatble. The Halting Mapping just doesn't happen to be one of them.
>> It is not, by the form (syntax) of the problem, impossible, but turns
>> out be by the details (semantics) to end not not being computable.
>>
>> These are DIFFERENT classes of impossible.
>>
> All logical impossibilities are equally impossible and
> semantically the equivalent.