On 3/18/2024 11:17 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 18/03/24 06:08, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/17/2024 7:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 18/03/24 00:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is programmed to answer "no" even though the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is "yes".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine
>>>>>>>>>>> that uses it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what answer is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return,
>>>>>>>>>>> so you can't assume any.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer for the H^ built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can
>>>>>>>>> give it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
>>>>>>>> author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
>>>>>>>> question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
>>>>>>>> answering by being gagged as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
>>>>>>>> thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>> "logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
>>>>>>>> professor Hehner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
>>>>>>>> food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
>>>>>>>> is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
>>>>>>>> of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a
>>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
>>>>>>>> context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
>>>>>>> someone may answer "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
>>>>>>>> is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
>>>>>>>> others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
>>>>>>>> wording of this question is not changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked.
>>>>>>> If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong
>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question
>>>>>> (a)/(b):
>>>>>> (a) Can 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
>>>>>> *The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
>>>>>> *of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word question*
>>>>>> *is correct or incorrect*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the question, "Does the machine this input describes Halt when
>>>>> run?" doesn't depend on who you ask. (Unless your input isn't
>>>>> actually a Computation)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "Carol" question is about Carol being able to answer, so it
>>>>> naturally depend on Carol.
>>>>>
>>>>> THe Halting Question doesn't mention the decider in any way, so
>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the particular question include a copy of one decider, but
>>>>> that doesn't refer to that decider in any specific way, so doesn't
>>>>> make the question change.
>>>>
>>>> The question is the same: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>> The answer is the same (assuming a simulating halt decider): YES.
>>>> For H1 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is CORRECT  // waits for more execution
>>>> traces
>>>> For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is INCORRECT
>>>
>>> Wrong, it's correct in both cases because Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts in all cases.
>>>
>> H1 correctly determines that it need not abort its simulation thus
>> returns 1
>> H has the inductive basis to know that it must abort its simulation
>> thus returns 0
>
> Completely irrelevant strawman deception ignored. H1's job and H's job
> is to tell whether the direct execution of D(D) would halt.

It is incorrect for H(D,D) to report that D(D) halts because
D(D) never halts when H believes that D(D) halts.

It is only because H(D,D) sees that it must intervene and force
D(D) to stop running that D(D) ever stops running.

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