On 12/2/2022 11:24 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 18:55:13 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> The way that you prove that a "pile of bricks" is not a type of
>> {baby kitten} is within the knowledge ontology defining the
>> semantic meaning of natural language words.
> Your stupidity stems from confusing syntax and semantics.
>
> The syntax says "This text is black". Define the semantics of "black" and prove that the sentence is true.

Rudolf Carnap and Richard Montague showed the details of how to specify
semantics syntactically, thus no need for any arbitrary division between
them.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:56:37 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> Rudolf Carnap and Richard Montague showed the details of how to specify
> semantics syntactically, thus no need for any arbitrary division between
> them.
>
This statement is VERY wrong but comp.theory is not the place to discuss.

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:32:52 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> A semantic definition can be constrained by the abstraction layer to which
> it is being applied.

Don't tell me. Show me. Provide the semantic definition for "abstraction layer".

On 12/2/2022 12:28 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:56:37 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> Rudolf Carnap and Richard Montague showed the details of how to specify
>> semantics syntactically, thus no need for any arbitrary division between
>> them.
>>
> This statement is VERY wrong but comp.theory is not the place to discuss.

It is required when the term {prove} is defined across the scope of
formal and natural languages.

{Prove} always means applying truth preserving operations to expressions
of language deriving another expression of language typically called the
consequence/conclusion.

This was required so that it can be proved that D is correctly simulated
by H.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:47:27 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 11:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 18:55:13 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> Proof theory is not theory end all be all of every sort of proof.
> > It is. That's why it's called "proof theory" because it's about proofs being actual Mathematical objects.
> >
> > If you have some other theory about what it means "to prove" something - share it with us.
> {Prove} always means applying truth preserving operations to expressions
> of language deriving another expression of language typically called the
> consequence/conclusion.
What do you mean by "operations". Do you perhaps have some meaning in mind other than the ideas captured in Operator Theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_theory

> > You have confused epistemology and ontology.
> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
> representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories
> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
> substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
What do you mean by "representation". Do you perhaps have some meaning in mind other than the ideas captured in Representation Theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_theory

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:56:37 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Rudolf Carnap and Richard Montague showed the details of how to specify
> semantics syntactically, thus no need for any arbitrary division between
> them.
Don't tell me. Show me.

Given the expression "Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))"

Define the meaning of the symbol "↔" using the syntax above.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2022 10:34:51 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:

> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:32:52 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> A semantic definition can be constrained by the abstraction layer to
>> which it is being applied.
>
> Don't tell me. Show me. Provide the semantic definition for "abstraction
> layer".

As best that is an uninteresting meta discussion, at worst it is just hand
waving on your part.

/Flibble

On 12/2/2022 12:38 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:47:27 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/2/2022 11:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 18:55:13 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> Proof theory is not theory end all be all of every sort of proof.
>>> It is. That's why it's called "proof theory" because it's about proofs being actual Mathematical objects.
>>>
>>> If you have some other theory about what it means "to prove" something - share it with us.
>> {Prove} always means applying truth preserving operations to expressions
>> of language deriving another expression of language typically called the
>> consequence/conclusion.
> What do you mean by "operations". Do you perhaps have some meaning in mind other than the ideas captured in Operator Theory?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_theory
>
>>> You have confused epistemology and ontology.
>> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
>> representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories
>> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
>> substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> What do you mean by "representation". Do you perhaps have some meaning in mind other than the ideas captured in Representation Theory?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_theory
>

I tend to apply my use of terms to their generic base meaning.
All proofs involve finite string transformation rules such that finite
strings having the semantic property of Boolean true are transformed
into finite strings having the semantic property of Boolean true.

Davidson's truth conditional semantics elaborates some of the details of
this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

My reasoning applies across formal and natural languages. Truth
conditional semantics need not be restricted to natural language.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 20:49:27 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2022 10:34:51 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:32:52 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> A semantic definition can be constrained by the abstraction layer to
> >> which it is being applied.
> >
> > Don't tell me. Show me. Provide the semantic definition for "abstraction
> > layer".
> As best that is an uninteresting meta discussion, at worst it is just hand
> waving on your part.

It's a meta-discussion, alright. Provide the semantic definition for "uninteresting" and prove it true.

On 12/2/2022 12:42 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:56:37 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> Rudolf Carnap and Richard Montague showed the details of how to specify
>> semantics syntactically, thus no need for any arbitrary division between
>> them.
> Don't tell me. Show me.
>
> Given the expression "Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))"
>
> Define the meaning of the symbol "↔" using the syntax above.

Simply a truth table showing that the LHS always has the same truth
value as the RHS.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 20:55:58 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 12:42 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:56:37 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> Rudolf Carnap and Richard Montague showed the details of how to specify
> >> semantics syntactically, thus no need for any arbitrary division between
> >> them.
> > Don't tell me. Show me.
> >
> > Given the expression "Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))"
> >
> > Define the meaning of the symbol "↔" using the syntax above.
> Simply a truth table showing that the LHS always has the same truth
> value as the RHS.
So show me the source-code. for the decider ↔(lhs, rhs).

What does ↔(T,∃) mean ?

On 12/2/2022 1:04 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 20:55:58 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/2/2022 12:42 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:56:37 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> Rudolf Carnap and Richard Montague showed the details of how to specify
>>>> semantics syntactically, thus no need for any arbitrary division between
>>>> them.
>>> Don't tell me. Show me.
>>>
>>> Given the expression "Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))"
>>>
>>> Define the meaning of the symbol "↔" using the syntax above.
>> Simply a truth table showing that the LHS always has the same truth
>> value as the RHS.
> So show me the source-code. for the decider ↔(lhs, rhs).
>

It is only a truth table, have you ever heard of those?

> What does ↔(T,∃) mean ?

Gibberish to me.
↔(p,q) is the correct way to say this.

if (p.Boolean == q.Boolean)
return true;
return false;

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott

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

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:11:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> It is only a truth table, have you ever heard of those?
> > What does ↔(T,∃) mean ?
> Gibberish to me.
I don't care what you think.
I want to know what your function would return if invoked as above?

> ↔(p,q) is the correct way to say this.
*sigh* idiot.
let p = T
let q = ∃

What would evaluating the expression "↔(p,q)" do?

> if (p.Boolean == q.Boolean)
> return true;
> return false;
Sorry. I have no idea what you mean by "==".

Please show me the source code for ==(p,q).

On 12/2/2022 1:18 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:11:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> It is only a truth table, have you ever heard of those?
>>> What does ↔(T,∃) mean ?
>> Gibberish to me.
> I don't care what you think.
> I want to know what your function would return if invoked as above?
>
>> ↔(p,q) is the correct way to say this.
> *sigh* idiot.
> let p = T
> let q = ∃
>
> What would evaluating the expression "↔(p,q)" do?
>
>> if (p.Boolean == q.Boolean)
>> return true;
>> return false;
> Sorry. I have no idea what you mean by "==".
>
> Please show me the source code for ==(p,q).

Just playing head games...

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:28:22 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> > Please show me the source code for ==(p,q).
> Just playing head games...

No. Try again. Please show me the source code for the function ==(p,q) such that...

==(1,1) returns true; and ==(1,2) returns false.

Maybe you'll finally understand the difference between intensional and and extensional definitions of terms.

On 12/2/2022 1:33 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:28:22 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> Please show me the source code for ==(p,q).
>> Just playing head games...
>
> No. Try again. Please show me the source code for the function ==(p,q) such that...
>
> ==(1,1) returns true; and ==(1,2) returns false.
>
> Maybe you'll finally understand the difference between intensional and and extensional definitions of terms.
>

C syntax mapped to x86 semantics implemented using hardware circuits.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:48:50 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> C syntax mapped to x86 semantics implemented using hardware circuits.
*cough* bullshit *cough*

You are welcome to provide the source code for the ==(p,q) hardware circuit in your favourite HDL (Hardware Description Language).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_description_language

On 12/2/2022 1:52 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:48:50 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> C syntax mapped to x86 semantics implemented using hardware circuits.
> *cough* bullshit *cough*
>
> You are welcome to provide the source code for the ==(p,q) hardware circuit in your favourite HDL (Hardware Description Language).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_description_language

I stop talking to people that deny things that they know are true.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott

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

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:48:50 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> C syntax mapped to x86 semantics implemented using hardware circuits.
And just so you catch a wake up call. the CMP x86 operator (which is basically what == maps to for small integers) is implemented using subtraction.

cmp(p,q) subtracts q from p which then checks the CPU's zero-flag. Buuuut, you have probably already guessed what I will ask you next...

Please show me the source code for -(p,q)

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:57:12 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 1:52 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 21:48:50 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> C syntax mapped to x86 semantics implemented using hardware circuits.
> > *cough* bullshit *cough*
> >
> > You are welcome to provide the source code for the ==(p,q) hardware circuit in your favourite HDL (Hardware Description Language).
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_description_language
> I stop talking to people that deny things that they know are true.
Yeah. I am calling bullshit!

Of course I know that =(p,q) is true when p=1; q=1.
And of course I know that =(p,q) is false when p=1; q=2

That's not the issue here!

I am asking you for the source code of the =(p,q) decider.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2022 10:54:13 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:

> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 20:49:27 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2022 10:34:51 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 19:32:52 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> >> A semantic definition can be constrained by the abstraction layer to
>> >> which it is being applied.
>> >
>> > Don't tell me. Show me. Provide the semantic definition for
>> > "abstraction layer".
>> As best that is an uninteresting meta discussion, at worst it is just
>> hand waving on your part.
>
> It's a meta-discussion, alright. Provide the semantic definition for
> "uninteresting" and prove it true.

If you wish to know what the word "uninteresting" MEANS then I suggest you
invest in a dictionary of the English language. Prove that the meaning of
the word is true? The meaning of the word? That is a category error on
your part.

/Flibble

On 12/2/22 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 7:49 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 15:01:55 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> No, completenes is about the PROVABILITY of statement.
>>> A statement can be known to have a correct answer, but we can not
>>> actually know that answer.
>> It's the exact same thing.
>>
>> If you can't prove whether a **particular** answer is "correct" then
>> your system is incomplete with respect to "correctness"!
>>
>> What the hell does it mean for the statement "2+2" to have a correct
>> answer if you can't actually determine whether 4 is a "correct" answer?
>>
>>>>> Olcott seem to think that this specific H can sometimes give one
>>>>> answer
>>>>> and sometimes another.
>>>> It's not a matter of what anyone thinks. Indeed, any specific H
>>>> could be non-deterministic.
>>> Not an be a Turing Machine Equivalent.
>> Nonsense. Deterministic and non-deterministic Turing Machines are
>> sub-types of Turing Machines.
>>
>>> So, you don't understand that problem either.
>> There's nothing to understand.  You ask a question (2+2)  - some
>> function produces an answer (4).
>>
>> The answer "4" is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?
>>
>>>> You already know the answer - just produce it.
>>> The problem is H needs to produce it, but can't
>> That's a lie. H produces an answer.
>>
>> The answer H produces is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?
>
> https://liarparadox.org/2022_11_14.zip
>
> The H(D,D) of the above fully operational software system
> correctly determines that its input specifies a non-halting
> sequence of configurations according to this criteria:
>
>   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>   input D until H correctly determines that its simulated
>   D would never stop running unless aborted then H can
>   abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

So it BY DEFINITION isn't a Halt Decider. PERIOD.

Because the DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it MUST report Halting
from H(M,x) if M(x) halts when run, and Non-Halting from H(M,x) if M(x)
will NEVER stop running after an unbounded number of steps.

Since D(D) WILL Halt since H(D,D) returns 0, the correct answer for an
ACTUAL Halt Decider is Halting.

Since your critera says something different, it isn't equivalent, and
thus you have just PROVED that your "Simulating Halt Deciders" are not
actually Halt Decider.

The fact that you keep on claiming they are just shows that you are
either a pathologica liar or totally mentally incompetent.

>
> *Correct simulation of D by H* is defined as a line-by-line
> mapping from the x86 source code of D to each line of the
> execution trace of D.

Which isn't the definition of Correct Simulation if the field, which is
one reason you get different

>
> Only a diverge of this mapping shows that the simulation is
> incorrect, it is otherwise correct even if incomplete.

Thus again PROVING that yoy are not working on the ACTUAL Halting
Problem, and are proven to be a LIAR when you claim you are.

Either that or totally mentally incompetent to not to be able to
understand that basic definition and rules of logic.

You are just PROVING you have wasted the last 18 years of your life.

>
> _D()
> [000019b3] 55         push ebp
> [000019b4] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000019b6] 51         push ecx
> [000019b7] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000019ba] 50         push eax
> [000019bb] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000019be] 51         push ecx
> [000019bf] e8bff9ffff call 00001383
> [000019c4] 83c408     add esp,+08
> [000019c7] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
> [000019ca] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [000019ce] 7402       jz 000019d2
> [000019d0] ebfe       jmp 000019d0
> [000019d2] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
> [000019d4] 5d         pop ebp
> [000019d5] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [000019d5]
>
> _main()
> [000019e3] 55             push ebp
> [000019e4] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> [000019e6] 68b3190000     push 000019b3 // push D
> [000019eb] 68b3190000     push 000019b3 // push D
> [000019f0] e88ef9ffff     call 00001383 // call H
> [000019f5] 83c408         add esp,+08
> [000019f8] 33c0           xor eax,eax
> [000019fa] 5d             pop ebp
> [000019fb] c3             ret
> Size in bytes:(0025) [000019fb]
>
>  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>  address   address   data      code       language
>  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [000019e3][00102a39][00000000] 55         push ebp      // begin main
> [000019e4][00102a39][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000019e6][00102a35][000019b3] 68b3190000 push 000019b3 // push D
> [000019eb][00102a31][000019b3] 68b3190000 push 000019b3 // push D
> [000019f0][00102a2d][000019f5] e88ef9ffff call 00001383 // call H
>
> When H correctly simulates D it finds that D remains stuck in recursive
> simulation
>
> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112ae5
> Address_of_H:1383
> [000019b3][00112ad1][00112ad5] 55         push ebp       // begin D
> [000019b4][00112ad1][00112ad5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000019b6][00112acd][00102aa1] 51         push ecx
> [000019b7][00112acd][00102aa1] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000019ba][00112ac9][000019b3] 50         push eax       // call D
> [000019bb][00112ac9][000019b3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000019be][00112ac5][000019b3] 51         push ecx       // push D
> [000019bf][00112ac1][000019c4] e8bff9ffff call 00001383  // call H
> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> We can see that the first seven instructions of D simulated by H
> precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86 source-code of
> D. This conclusively proves that these instructions were simulated
> correctly.
>
>

On Fri, 02 Dec 2022 20:02:44 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:

> On 12/2/22 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/2/2022 7:49 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 15:01:55 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> No, completenes is about the PROVABILITY of statement.
>>>> A statement can be known to have a correct answer, but we can not
>>>> actually know that answer.
>>> It's the exact same thing.
>>>
>>> If you can't prove whether a **particular** answer is "correct" then
>>> your system is incomplete with respect to "correctness"!
>>>
>>> What the hell does it mean for the statement "2+2" to have a correct
>>> answer if you can't actually determine whether 4 is a "correct"
>>> answer?
>>>
>>>>>> Olcott seem to think that this specific H can sometimes give one
>>>>>> answer and sometimes another.
>>>>> It's not a matter of what anyone thinks. Indeed, any specific H
>>>>> could be non-deterministic.
>>>> Not an be a Turing Machine Equivalent.
>>> Nonsense. Deterministic and non-deterministic Turing Machines are
>>> sub-types of Turing Machines.
>>>
>>>> So, you don't understand that problem either.
>>> There's nothing to understand.  You ask a question (2+2)  - some
>>> function produces an answer (4).
>>>
>>> The answer "4" is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?
>>>
>>>>> You already know the answer - just produce it.
>>>> The problem is H needs to produce it, but can't
>>> That's a lie. H produces an answer.
>>>
>>> The answer H produces is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?
>>
>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_11_14.zip
>>
>> The H(D,D) of the above fully operational software system correctly
>> determines that its input specifies a non-halting sequence of
>> configurations according to this criteria:
>>
>>   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
>>   H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>   running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>   correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>   configurations.
>
> So it BY DEFINITION isn't a Halt Decider. PERIOD.
>
> Because the DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it MUST report Halting
> from H(M,x) if M(x) halts when run, and Non-Halting from H(M,x) if M(x)
> will NEVER stop running after an unbounded number of steps.
>
> Since D(D) WILL Halt since H(D,D) returns 0, the correct answer for an
> ACTUAL Halt Decider is Halting.
>
> Since your critera says something different, it isn't equivalent, and
> thus you have just PROVED that your "Simulating Halt Deciders" are not
> actually Halt Decider.
>
> The fact that you keep on claiming they are just shows that you are
> either a pathologica liar or totally mentally incompetent.
>
>
>> *Correct simulation of D by H* is defined as a line-by-line mapping
>> from the x86 source code of D to each line of the execution trace of D.
>
> Which isn't the definition of Correct Simulation if the field, which is
> one reason you get different
>
>
>> Only a diverge of this mapping shows that the simulation is incorrect,
>> it is otherwise correct even if incomplete.
>
> Thus again PROVING that yoy are not working on the ACTUAL Halting
> Problem, and are proven to be a LIAR when you claim you are.
>
> Either that or totally mentally incompetent to not to be able to
> understand that basic definition and rules of logic.
>
> You are just PROVING you have wasted the last 18 years of your life.

Why do you persist in posting the same thing again and again and again? Do
you somehow think it will eventually make one iota of a difference?
Haven't you got anything better to do with your time?

/Flibble

On 12/2/22 8:49 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 15:01:55 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> No, completenes is about the PROVABILITY of statement.
>> A statement can be known to have a correct answer, but we can not actually know that answer.
> It's the exact same thing.

Nope, we might know that an answer MUST exist, as the problem falls into
the domain of the Law of the Excluded Middle, and thus DOES have a
corret answer, but we are unable to find what that answer is.

>
> If you can't prove whether a **particular** answer is "correct" then your system is incomplete with respect to "correctness"!

Right, which is what I was showing. Perhap you have a comprehension issue.

>
> What the hell does it mean for the statement "2+2" to have a correct answer if you can't actually determine whether 4 is a "correct" answer?

Who said we couldn't show the correct answer for 2+2?

>
>>>> Olcott seem to think that this specific H can sometimes give one answer
>>>> and sometimes another.
>>> It's not a matter of what anyone thinks. Indeed, any specific H could be non-deterministic.
>> Not an be a Turing Machine Equivalent.
> Nonsense. Deterministic and non-deterministic Turing Machines are sub-types of Turing Machines.
>
>> So, you don't understand that problem either.
> There's nothing to understand. You ask a question (2+2) - some function produces an answer (4).

Not my question, so the rest is totally irrelevant. The fact that for
SOME questions we can't prove the correct answer doesn't mean that we
can't prove the correct answer for others.

>
> The answer "4" is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?
>
>>> You already know the answer - just produce it.
>> The problem is H needs to produce it, but can't
> That's a lie. H produces an answer.
>
> The answer H produces is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?

The answer his H (or in fact ANY H for the question based on that
particular H) is wrong.

>
>> A program that halts, can always be proven to halt by just running it
>> till it reaches that final step.
> This is incoherent. a Proof IS a program. A proof either halts; or it doesn't.

So? You don't understand that BY DEFINITION, if a given program does
Ha;t, that means it halts in some finite number of steps, and thus by
doing those finite number of steps, we have just proven that it does halt.

You seem to be having a comprehension issue.

>
>> For programs that don't halt, we can often actually PROVE that they
>> don't, but not for all cases. That is actually one way to show the
>> Halting Problem.
> Incoherent nonsense. How do you prove that a program halts when a proof is a program?
>
> How do you prove that a proof halts?

On way to prove it halts is to do it, and show that it reaches the final
step in a finite number of steps.

A proof is a finite sequence of logical steps. That sequence of steps
CAN be the steps of the program. So, the running of a halting program,
will eventually reach that final state, and PROVES that it is a halting
program.

It seems you are the one having problems seeing that a prove can be a
program that halts.

>
>> Note, it is possible for us to not know if the answer from H is correct
>> or incorrect.
> How do you know? Surely you must have some method in mind by which you can prove that an answer is "correct" or "incorrect"?

It follows from the fact that not all programs are deciable with regard
to halting.

>
> Provide it please.

You can't necessarily prove that something is unknowable. That is part
of incompleteness.

>
>> If H answers Halting, and it is correct, we can prove it correct by just
>> running the input program.
> Huh?!? How? Any running program could halt. Eventually.

If the program WILL Halt, then by running it, we will see that and PROVE
that it halts.

Note, there are patterns that are provably non-halting, for instance,
any Turing Machine that returns to an exact state (including the
contents and placement of the tape) MUST continue on the same path it
did last time, and thus we can prove by induction that it will never halt.

>
> If P hasn't yet halted but could in future WHEN do you assert that H was "incorrect" ?

Irrelevent to the point you are refering to, since that case was
assuming that H answered Halting and WAS correct.

You are asking about the case BELOW, and as I mentioned just above,
there are SOME cases you can prove that a program will never halt.

>
>> If H answers Halting, and that is incorrect, we MIGHT be able to prove
>> it wrong, if this is a case that we can prove to be non-halting.
> Huh?!? How? Proofs are programs.

So, you don't understand how induction can be used to prove something in
a finite number of steps about an infinite set?

>
> What sort of program are you going to write which proves that another program halts?

I am not writing "Programs", I am talking about PROOF,

>
>> If H answers Non-Halting, and that is incorrect, we can prove it wrong
>> by running the input and seeing it halt (as we do in the case in question).
> But you would be doing EXACTLY what H did!?!?
>
> It ran/simulated the program! How is your runner/simulator better than H's runner/simulator?

Because D isn't built to contradict me.

Yes, there are some programs that I will be unable to decide on, but
because I can see the relationship between H and D, and can use logic
based on that.

>
>> If H answers Non-Halting, and that is correct, we MIGHT be able to prove
>> it right, or we might not.
> Huh?!? How?!? Proofs are programs.

Not to me. Maybe you are limiting your thinking to programatic proofs.

>
> What sort of program (other than H) would you produce to prove that another program doesn't halt?

I didn't say I was using a program, I used a PROOF, using the knowledge
of the construction of D.

>
>> This shows the difference between PROVING something is correct or
>> incorrect or it actually being correct or incorrect.
> No, this shows sophistry. Proofs are programs.
>
> If program A proves that program B is correct, you still have no proof that program A is correct about program B being correct.

So, it seems your logic system has no concept of things being actually
true or proven. If you can't believe your own proof, you know nothing.

>
>> A binary, but non-computable, answer WILL be either correct or
>> incorrect, but we might not know which it is in a given case.
> You are equivocating "knowing".
>
> How would you know whether an answer is "correct" in the cases where you can know?

When I can actually prove them. Everything actually Proven is True.

>
>> No, we can show that THIS program WILL halt....
> How? Surely you have to run/simulate THIS program.

Right, the program mentioned is know to Halt, and that can be proven by
just running it and seeing that it does halts.

I note you are taking answers out of context, showing you are being a
DECEPTIVE Skep Dick

>
> When you run/simulate THIS program - you are doing EXACTLY the same thing as the simulating halt-decider.

No, the simulation Halt-decider aborted its simulation to give the
non-halting answer. I didn't, and because the program isn't based on me,
we don't get the problem that H runs into.

>
>> we can prove that this H gave the wrong answer.
> Oh, you can prove it. Can you? Proofs are programs.
>
> Since you are volunteering a proof - please provide a program/proof which correctly determines that H is incorrect.

By Inspecting of P, P(P) will Halt if H(P,P) returns non-halting (in the
Turing Machine case, a final state of P is the exact state of the final
state of H that reports non-halting).

Since it is claimed that H(P,P) will "correctly" return Non-Halting, we
see that that can't be correct, as if H(P,P) returns non-halting P(P)
will Halt.

We can then go father and show that if H(P,P) returns Halting, that P(P)
will not halt, as by constuction, the final state of H that reports
non-halting has been converted into an infinite loop, which will clearly
never halt.

Since by requirement, H to give a correct answer must do one of the two
above behaviors, it will ALWAYS be wrong.

>
>> For the original proof
> In what programming language are you going to present this "proof"?

LOGIC.

>
>> we can also prove that the H^ program WILL be non-halting if the H is shown to return Halting for H applied to H^ H^
> In what programming language are you going to present this "proof"?
>

LOGIC.

>> so we can actually PROVE that IF it gives an answer
> In what programming language can we PROVE this?
>

On 12/2/22 8:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

> Why do you persist in posting the same thing again and again and again? Do
> you somehow think it will eventually make one iota of a difference?
> Haven't you got anything better to do with your time?
>
> /Flibble

I could ask the same thing of you. Why do YOU complain about my posting?