On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, but only one of them for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory expression
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value to the expression that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D) that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing Machines and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there input to a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY member of that input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask a decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped beating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, Halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is contained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops so qn was the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the best
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different question when posed
>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely
>>>>>>>>> objective question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking
>>>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can
>>>>>>>>> be given to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will
>>>>>>>>> be the same irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right
>>>>>>>>> answer, and some will give the wrong answer. The fact that that
>>>>>>>>> H is in the latter doesn't make the question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try
>>>>>>>>> to redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where
>>>>>>>>> we prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but
>>>>>>>>> each of those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all one
>>>>>>>>> question) and each of those seperate questions have a correct
>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only reason that:
>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
>>>>
>>>> The only reason that:
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to
>>>> Carol
>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is
>>>> contradicted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
>>> claims again.
>>>
>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have
>>> no basis.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
>>>
>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where
>>> anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>
>>
>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>> *is not contradicted just like*
>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>
>
> Yes, I have.
>
> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>
> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>

On 3/15/24 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, but only one of them for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value to the expression that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D) that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing Machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there input to a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY member of that input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask a decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beating their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, Halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is contained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops so qn was the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different question when posed
>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely
>>>>>>>>>> objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider
>>>>>>>>>> looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can
>>>>>>>>>> be given to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will
>>>>>>>>>> be the same irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right
>>>>>>>>>> answer, and some will give the wrong answer. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>> that H is in the latter doesn't make the question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try
>>>>>>>>>> to redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where
>>>>>>>>>> we prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but
>>>>>>>>>> each of those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all one
>>>>>>>>>> question) and each of those seperate questions have a correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to
>>>>> Carol
>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is
>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
>>>> claims again.
>>>>
>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have
>>>> no basis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where
>>>> anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I have.
>>
>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>
>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>
>
> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
> their respective question (a)/(b):
> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>
> *Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*
> Carol could answer by flipping the bird.
>

On 15/03/24 20:00, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the wrong answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only one of them for each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value to the expression that is the requirment for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that maps all Turing Machines and there input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERY member of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that input set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ask a decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped beating their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a presumption of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about the INPUTS to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect question we must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always ignore this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just shown to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this input, Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer, thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make
>>>>>>>>>>> sure that
>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and don't try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each of these answers
>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct answer, just not
>>>>>>>> the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and loops so qn
>>>>>> was the right answer.
>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>
>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>
>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the best you can
>>>> say?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So?
>>
>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the ACTUAL
>> QUESTION needs to come from.
>>
>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>
> Objective and Subjective Specifications
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>
> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
> synonymous with "no".
>
> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>
> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
> that question proves that it is a different question when posed
> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>
> 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
>
> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>
>

On 15/03/24 20:23, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the wrong answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only one of them for each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory expression the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value to the expression that is the requirment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that maps all Turing Machines and there input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERY member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that input set, means tha Halts is a valid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping to ask a decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has never been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped beating their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a presumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about the INPUTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect question we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this input, Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer, thus not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and don't try to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each of these
>>>>>>>>>>> answers
>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct answer, just
>>>>>>>>>> not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and loops so
>>>>>>>> qn was the right answer.
>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the best you
>>>>>> can say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the ACTUAL
>>>> QUESTION needs to come from.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>>>
>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>
>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>
>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
>>> that question proves that it is a different question when posed
>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>
>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely
>> objective question.
>>
>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking at it.
>>
>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can be given
>> to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will be the same
>> irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right answer, and some
>> will give the wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the latter
>> doesn't make the question subjective.
>>
>> The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try to
>> redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
>>
>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where we
>> prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of
>> those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all one question) and each of
>> those seperate questions have a correct answer.
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>
>
> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?

On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, but only one of them for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value to the expression that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D) that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing Machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there input to a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY member of that input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask a decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beating their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, Halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is contained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops so qn was the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different question when posed
>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely
>>>>>>>>>> objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider
>>>>>>>>>> looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can
>>>>>>>>>> be given to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will
>>>>>>>>>> be the same irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right
>>>>>>>>>> answer, and some will give the wrong answer. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>> that H is in the latter doesn't make the question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try
>>>>>>>>>> to redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where
>>>>>>>>>> we prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but
>>>>>>>>>> each of those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all one
>>>>>>>>>> question) and each of those seperate questions have a correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to
>>>>> Carol
>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is
>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
>>>> claims again.
>>>>
>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have
>>>> no basis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where
>>>> anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I have.
>>
>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>
>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>
>
> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
> their respective question (a)/(b):
> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.

On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, but only one of them for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a truth value to the expression that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D) that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing Machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there input to a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY member of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input set, means tha Halts is a valid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping to ask a decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beating their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, Halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is contained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops so qn was the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different question when posed
>>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a
>>>>>>>>>>> purely objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can
>>>>>>>>>>> be given to any decider to answer, and the correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>> will be the same irrespective of you ask. Some will give the
>>>>>>>>>>> right answer, and some will give the wrong answer. The fact
>>>>>>>>>>> that that H is in the latter doesn't make the question
>>>>>>>>>>> subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to
>>>>>>>>>>> try to redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but
>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta,
>>>>>>>>>>> where we prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, but each of those are SEPERATE Halting question (not
>>>>>>>>>>> all one question) and each of those seperate questions have a
>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such
>>>>>>>>>>>> as H1
>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is
>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed
>>>>>> to Carol
>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is
>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
>>>>> claims again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have
>>>>> no basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where
>>>>> anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I have.
>>>
>>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>>
>>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>>
>>
>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
>> their respective question (a)/(b):
>> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>
> (b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>

On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer, but only one of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a truth value to the expression that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D) that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing Machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there input to a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY member of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input set, means tha Halts is a valid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping to ask a decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beating their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something not actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, Halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is contained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops so qn was the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different question when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> posed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> purely objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be given to any decider to answer, and the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer will be the same irrespective of you ask. Some will
>>>>>>>>>>>> give the right answer, and some will give the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't make the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to
>>>>>>>>>>>> try to redefine it so the input changes with who you ask,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta,
>>>>>>>>>>>> where we prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, but each of those are SEPERATE Halting question (not
>>>>>>>>>>>> all one question) and each of those seperate questions have
>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is
>>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed
>>>>>>> to Carol
>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is
>>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
>>>>>> claims again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you
>>>>>> have no basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where
>>>>>> anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I have.
>>>>
>>>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>>>
>>>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>>>
>>>
>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
>>> their respective question (a)/(b):
>>> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>
>> (b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>>
>
> When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
> thus it is the wrong answer.

On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer, but only one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them for each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical impossibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS a truth value to the expression
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the requirment for ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly cost your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D) that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to stipulate its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machines and there input to a result of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting / Non-Halting for EVERY member
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that input set, means tha Halts is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid mapping to ask a decider to try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beating their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something not actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping requested is about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always ignore this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input described by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, Halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question posed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only because each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and loops so qn was the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such that every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with any word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different question when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be given to any decider to answer, and the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer will be the same irrespective of you ask. Some will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the right answer, and some will give the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to redefine it so the input changes with who you ask,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where we prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, but each of those are SEPERATE Halting question (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all one question) and each of those seperate questions have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is
>>>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed
>>>>>>>> to Carol
>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is
>>>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your
>>>>>>> FALSE claims again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you
>>>>>>> have no basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where
>>>>>>> anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>>>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>>>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I have.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
>>>> their respective question (a)/(b):
>>>> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>> (b) Does Ĥ halt?
>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>
>>> (b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>>>
>>
>> When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
>> thus it is the wrong answer.
>
> What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
(a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop (always does the opposite of what it says).
(b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt (always does the opposite of what it says).