On 1/23/24 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 10:24 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 17:19, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>  >>> You cannot refute a stipulative definition.
>>> Yes you can and ZFC did:
>>>
>>> The definition of a {set} from naive set theory was found to
>>> be incoherent and ZFC fixed this by overriding and superseding
>>> this definition with its own definition of {set}.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The stipulative definition of a set in naive set theory remains
>
> Incoherent.

Yes you are.

>
>> stipulated in naive set theory. It is not stipulated in ZFC.
>
>
>

On 1/23/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-22 15:51:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/21/2024 1:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/24 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 1:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but
>>>>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>>>> for-
>>>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and does not
>>>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a
>>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university courses on
>>>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner claims the
>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is one of three authors that agree on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is known that if you restrict the halting problem to programs
>>>>>> with a certain memory limit, it can be solved by a halting decider
>>>>>> which uses more memory than the limit. When a program has limited
>>>>>> memory, it has to  halt or loop within a certain number of steps
>>>>>> (2 to the power of the number of bits of memory available,
>>>>>> including the program counter/state number). The Linz
>>>>>> counterexample program doesn't lead to a contradiction, because it
>>>>>> uses more memory than the limit, so the halting decider is unable
>>>>>> to analyze it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stoddart has the same idea as Olcott: there's a hidden variable
>>>>>> which tells the program whether it's already in a simulation, and
>>>>>> the program does something different if it's in a simulation than
>>>>>> if it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Stoddart doesn't say anything like this*
>>>>> You didn't read what he said you only guessed what he said.
>>>>
>>>> In the section 4.1 of the article:
>>>> "Implementation of H₁ requires it to determine whether it is being
>>>> invoked
>>>> from within S₁."
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> S ≙ if H(S) then Loop end.
>>>
>>> He did not use that for a solution.
>>> He did use it to reject pathological inputs:
>>> else Error (“Invalid program′′)
>>
>> Nice to see you agree.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> When I wrote my paper that joined the views of three different
> computer science professors into a single coherent view I ignored
> the details where all three did not agree.
>
> To over simplify these views all three agree that there is
> something wrong with the halting problem specification.
> Two of these three professors directly say this and the
> third strongly implies this.
>

So, you have three people agreeing on wrong ideas differently,

Doesn't make it right.

Maybe you should try to actually SHOW something with actual logical
work, rather than just write a paper based on the fallacy of proof by
authority.

Of course, that would require you to actually learn how to write a proof
and do real logic, and maybe knwo a bit about Computation Theory, so I
guess that won't work.

On 1/23/24 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 05:10, wij wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 22:01 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It does seem to solve the halting problem correctly.
>>>> People don't see it only because they care about disagreement
>>>> much more than they care about truth.
>>>
>>> Exactly, that is the same as why my claim "repeating decimals
>>> are irrational number" was not accepted. People's reality is
>>> actually those imposed from the system (school, government,..,
>>> society), not really the 'real' thing you discovered.
>>>
>>
>> I can't tell if this is trolling.
>>
>
> 0.333...
> Is not itself a rational number yet can be expressed
> as 1/3 which is a rational number.
>

If they are just two notations of the same number, they both must be
eitehr rational or not together.

Since 1/3 is clearly rational, so must be 0.333... per the normal
definition of that notation.

On 1/23/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its simulated final
> state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>
> Thus DD is correct to report that its correctly simulated DD DOES NOT
> HALT.
>

Which is a statement of POOP.

Since if DD *IS* correctly simulated by HH, that HH can not answer, and
thus fails to be a halt decider.

If HH aborts its simulation, it did not correctly simulate its input,
and the DD that matters for that HH is NOT the DD mentioned above, so
that result doesn't matter.

All you are proving is that you are lying. Either about what HH does, or
that you are working in the actual Computation Theory on the actual
Halting Problem.

Since you admit that DD isn't actually a program (because you don't
consider the HH that it calls as part of it, as requried to be in
Computation Theory) it seems that you have been just lying for the past
20 years what you have been working on and just wasted them.

On 1/23/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:

> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its simulated final
> state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>
> Therefore it is necessarily correct for HH to report on the recursive
> simulation behavior specified by its input DD.
>
> Most people are confused and don't understand that halt deciders
> must report in the behavior specified by their inputs.
>

And, for a Halt Decider, that behavior is the behavior of the machine
specified by the input.

Since for the D built on this H, D(D) Halts, so H(D,D) returning 0 is
incorrect.

You must be lying about something.

On 1/23/24 1:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 11:28 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 18:16, olcott wrote:
>>> Most people are confused and don't understand that halt deciders
>>> must report in the behavior specified by their inputs.
>>
>> One person (you) doesn't know what those words mean.
>
> I am the author of those words, thus know what they mean.

You may think you know what they mean, but clearly you are wrong.

>
> It is not the behavior of the direct execution of D(D)
> that D specifies to H. It is recursive simulation that
> D specifies to H.

Then you admit that H isn't a Halt Decider (and don't know the meaning
of those words).

You are just showing that you DON'T know the meaning of the words you
are using, since you using words with established meaning incorrectly.

>
> When D calls H in recursive simulation people make the huge
> mistake that H can ignore this because D does not call H1
> in recursive simulation.
>

No, H needs to account for the behavior of the H that it called.

Since both H's are copies of the same code (since you made them the same
code) H needs to use logic that the call will do whatever it does.

It doesn't do that, so it gets the wrong answer.

Your logic assumes that the exact same code can do two different things
with the exact same input, which is illogical and impossible.

On 1/23/24 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 05:01, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> It does seem to solve the halting problem correctly.
>>
>> No it doesn't. It says that D(D) doesn't halt, but D(D) halts.
>>
>
> A halt decider must report on the behavior that its finite string
> input specifies. Its finite string input specifies that it calls
> H in recursive simulation.
>

No, it calls H in FINITE recursion because that is what H does.

You just don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.

Since THIS D(D) Halts, that is the behavior the input specifies.

D calls the H that aborts its simulation, not the othe H you imagine
that doesn't, so you are just admitting that your H doesn't look at the
behavior of its ACTUAL input, but something else.

Thus, you LIE.

On 1/23/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/22/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 7:44 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 19:19 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 6:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 18:39 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 6:09 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 10:28 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:22:22 +0000, wij said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The error in the article is the claim that an "inconsistent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is somehow invalid. But it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A problem is a request to find at least one thing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements of the problem or to prove that no such thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> found.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is well posed if for every thing it is possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it satisfies all requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solved: a proof that no Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the requirements is known (and nothing else satisfies the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it must be a Turing machine).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a matter of opinion whether the usual presentation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting theorem is the best one. If one does not like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement one may instead use:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      For every universal Turing machine U and every Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      there is an input string S so that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      either T(S) halts but H(S) does not accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      or T(S) does not halt but H(S) accepts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This formulation has the disadvantage that it uses the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "univesal Turing machine", and therefore depends on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looked to me it is the statement of Halting Problem proved
>>>>>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>>>>>> T nor F bugged these people (including olcott).
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is also a status of proposition called contingency,
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_(philosophy)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately all these things boil down to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory questions must be rejected as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> questions. Hehner's paper explains this the best:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The key part that non-technical people can understand is
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That question is self-contradictory when posed to Carol
>>>>>>>>>>> and has the correct answer of "no" when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question actually originates from my own conversation:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:  (USENET
>>>>>>>>>>> sci.logic)
>>>>>>>>>>>    > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>    > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>>>>>>    >  Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> was addressed to me in 2004.
>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner had no way of knowing this I repeated this
>>>>>>>>>>> same question as Bill's question hundreds of times
>>>>>>>>>>> until I tracked down the original author.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The HP is asking (equivalent) for A PROGRAM that takes another
>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>> as its argument and decides whether or not that given program
>>>>>>>>>> will terminate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The HP is not asking the evaluation of "HP Theorem" (the
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion)
>>>>>>>>>> to be true or false!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The HP uses a counter-example D that does the opposite
>>>>>>>>> of whatever value that H returns, thus making the question
>>>>>>>>> Does D halt? a self-contradictory question for H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems you took it as:
>>>>>>>> Proposition P="A program that decides whether another program
>>>>>>>> halts or
>>>>>>>> not is undecidable".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have gone over these details many many thousands of times since
>>>>>>> 2004.
>>>>>>> That actual question for H is this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>   opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are just admitting that you have been working on a false
>>>>>> premsis for 20 years
>>>>>
>>>>> I merely put the full context of the question posed to H directly
>>>>> in the
>>>>> question the same way that immibis did for the Barber Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> But it isn't the same question.
>>>>
>>>> The actual question is INDEPENDENT of who you ask it to.
>>>
>>> That is a very stupid thing to say when you already know that
>>> its isomorphism DOES DEPEND ON WHO IS ASKED.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> THe "Isomorphism: isn;t actually isomorphic.
>>
>> You just don't understand the meaning of the word.
>>
>> It doesn't mean SIMILAR, it means having the exact same form, which
>> your changed one does not.
>>
>> If one depends on who is asked and the other doesn't, they can't be
>> isomorphic. DEFINITIONS you know. You seem to often get these
>> backwards. Stange for someone so intent on the meaning of words to be
>> so bad at the actual meaning of words and taking them in context.
>>
>> Almost like you are intentionally trying to be deceptive.
>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> Is an incorrect question for Carol and a correct question for everyone
> else.
>
> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
> opposite of whatever value that H returns?"

On 2024-01-23 15:28:32 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/23/2024 6:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-22 16:07:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-21 23:05:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/21/2024 4:53 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/24 23:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 4:18 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 3:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 3:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 2:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 20:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Stoddart doesn't say anything like this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't read what he said you only guessed what he said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Stoddart quite literally says it. His hidden variable is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called InS1. Did you read what he wrote? I think you are lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch. That was part of his intermediate analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and his conclusion does not reference anything like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are talking about section 5, he says that S (which is what he
>>>>>>>>>>>> calls D) does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I and wij are talking about the fact that three computer science
>>>>>>>>>>> professors agree that the halting problem itself is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wij only referred to Stoddart's view, yet also quoted Professor
>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner's agreement. This is two of the three.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly ignored the question part of the post you replied to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I soon as I hit the first fatal flaw quit reading.
>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't freaking attempt to change the subject away from this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you admit to dishonesty. Nice. I don't think you've read any part of
>>>>>>>> Stoddart's writing except for the conclusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you'll also find that Stoddart failed to formalize anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is Stoddart's conclusion thus agreeing with Hehner's
>>>>>>> conclusion that the halting problem itself is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for admitting you understand neither.
>>>>>
>>>>> *I simplified the language here are his exact words*
>>>>>
>>>>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt
>>>>>     test exists and then provides S as an example of a program
>>>>>     that the test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all.
>>>>>     It is not even a conceptual object, and this is due to
>>>>>     inconsistencies in the specification of the halting function.
>>>>>     (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>
>>>> That is false. For every program H there is a way to construct
>>>> a program Ĥ so that either Ĥ halts and H does not say it halts
>>>> or Ĥ does not halt and H does not say it halts. Perhaps Stoddart's
>>>> S is not Ĥ but that does not prevent the construction of Ĥ.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I have already proved countless times when D has been
>>> intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>>> Boolean value that H returns the question:
>>>
>>> D does halt on its input?
>>> Is an incorrect question when posed to H because both true
>>> and false are the wrong answer when this question is posed to H.
>>>
>>> The above only applied when H is required to report on the
>>> directly executed D(D).
>>
>> If H is not required to do that then it is not required to be a halt decider.
>>
>> Mikko
>
> H <is> not required to be the misconception of a halt decider.

What someone requires is required even if you don't require.

Anyway, nice to see that you don't disagree that

For every program H there is a way to construct
a program Ĥ so that either Ĥ halts and H does not say it halts
or Ĥ does not halt and H does not say it halts. Perhaps Stoddart's
S is not Ĥ but that does not prevent the construction of Ĥ.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 17:26:37 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 16:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2024 6:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-22 16:07:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-21 23:05:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 4:53 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 23:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 4:18 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 3:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 3:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 22:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2024 2:48 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/24 20:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Stoddart doesn't say anything like this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't read what he said you only guessed what he said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Stoddart quite literally says it. His hidden variable is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called InS1. Did you read what he wrote? I think you are lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch. That was part of his intermediate analysis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and his conclusion does not reference anything like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are talking about section 5, he says that S (which is what he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls D) does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I and wij are talking about the fact that three computer science
>>>>>>>>>>>>> professors agree that the halting problem itself is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wij only referred to Stoddart's view, yet also quoted Professor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner's agreement. This is two of the three.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly ignored the question part of the post you replied to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I soon as I hit the first fatal flaw quit reading.
>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Read Stoddart's conclusion*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't freaking attempt to change the subject away from this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you admit to dishonesty. Nice. I don't think you've read any part of
>>>>>>>>>> Stoddart's writing except for the conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you'll also find that Stoddart failed to formalize anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is Stoddart's conclusion thus agreeing with Hehner's
>>>>>>>>> conclusion that the halting problem itself is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for admitting you understand neither.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I simplified the language here are his exact words*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt
>>>>>>>     test exists and then provides S as an example of a program
>>>>>>>     that the test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all.
>>>>>>>     It is not even a conceptual object, and this is due to
>>>>>>>     inconsistencies in the specification of the halting function.
>>>>>>>     (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is false. For every program H there is a way to construct
>>>>>> a program Ĥ so that either Ĥ halts and H does not say it halts
>>>>>> or Ĥ does not halt and H does not say it halts. Perhaps Stoddart's
>>>>>> S is not Ĥ but that does not prevent the construction of Ĥ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have already proved countless times when D has been
>>>>> intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>>>>> Boolean value that H returns the question:
>>>>>
>>>>> D does halt on its input?
>>>>> Is an incorrect question when posed to H because both true
>>>>> and false are the wrong answer when this question is posed to H.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above only applied when H is required to report on the
>>>>> directly executed D(D).
>>>>
>>>> If H is not required to do that then it is not required to be a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>
>>> H <is> not required to be the misconception of a halt decider.
>>> Halt deciders are required to report on the behavior specified
>>> by their finite string inputs. DD specifies recursive simulation
>>> to HH.
>>>
>>
>> This is your version. It isn't a halting-problem decider. It's an
>> Olcott-problem decider. You changed the problem, so it's a different
>> problem - one which nobody cares about.
>>
>
> All deciders have always been required to report on the properties
> of their finite string inputs. This means that all halt deciders
> have always been required to report on the behavior that their
> finite string inputs specifies.

Not true. Some authors say that a "decider" is any Turing machine
that, when run with any input, halts in an "accept" state or in a
"reject" state.

Mikko

On 2024-01-21 20:15:54 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/21/2024 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/21/24 2:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>
>>> In the conclusion section:
>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but cannot be
>>> for-
>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and does not
>>> exist as
>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a
>>> paradox.
>>> The halting problem is universally used in university courses on
>>> Computer
>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner claims the
>>> halting
>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>
>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing something?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think the problem he is seeing is that the property of "Halting" can
>> not be uniformly determined in Finite Time.
>>
>> That is all that I can get from his statement of:
>>
>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but cannot be
>> formalised as a consistent specification.
>>
>> There certainly CAN be defined formal test that define Halting, the
>> issue is that non-halting is defined by the non-existence of a number N
>> for the number of steps needed to reach a final state.
>>
>> Some people just don't like the fact that it can be absolutely provable
>> what the answer is (and thus unknowable), even if we know from the
>> definition, that it must be one or the other.
>>
>> This leads us to a great divide in logics. The classical branch accepts
>> that some truth is only established by infinite chains of connections,
>> and thus can not be proven with a finite proof, and thus is unknowable.
>>
>> Others don't accept that, and require Truth to be only established by
>> Finite chains. The problem then is, such logic system need to greatly
>> limit the domain they attempt to cover, as otherwise you get into
>> endless chains of asking if a question can be asked, at which point you
>> need to ask if you can even ask about asking the questions. Only when
>> the domain is restricted in a way that the answer MUST be determinable
>> with finite work, can we break the cycle.
>>
>> For instance, if we limit ourselves to Finite State Machines (which
>> could be Turing Machines with a fixed finite tape, or a classical
>> program in a computer with limited memory) then we can be sure that the
>> answer is determinable with a finite amount of work.
>
> Tarski did not understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
> thus cannot possibly be true or false.

It is a sin to lie about other people. Tarski obviously unnderstood that,
as he could see an opportunity to exloit the fact.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 13:41:18 +0000, immibis said:

> On 1/23/24 05:30, olcott wrote:
>> In other words you believe that the Liar Paradox has a truth value?
>
> If YOU believe that True(L,x) exists then YOU believe the Liar Paradox
> has a truth value.

That does not follow. It is perfectly possible that someone
believes that every cat is a mammal and that every mammal is
an animal and that some cats are not animals and that everything
proven from thruths by a valid syllogism is true. People are
not logical, as a paticipant of this discussion has already
demonstrated.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 19:07:32 +0000, immibis said:

> On 1/23/24 19:30, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 11:23 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 18:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2024 7:41 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/24 05:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> In other words you believe that the Liar Paradox has a truth value?
>>>>>
>>>>> If YOU believe that True(L,x) exists then YOU believe the Liar Paradox
>>>>> has a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ x) with its corresponding False(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ ~x)
>>>
>>> Then you believe the liar paradox has a truth value.
>>>
>>
>> Invalid(L, x) ≡ (~True(L, x) & ~False(L, x))
>> Thus Invalid(L, LP) is TRUE.
>>
>
> ⊢ stands for provability. True and False should be called Provable and
> OppositeProvable.

Disprovable is shorter.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 19:08:24 +0000, immibis said:

> On 1/23/24 19:16, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>
>>> True is like the set of all sets which do not contain themselves.
>>
>> Not at all:
>> True(PA, "2 + 3 = 5") is not pathological like the Liar Paradox.
>
> S = {x | x ∉ x}
> {1}∈S is not pathological.

But it is not a "set" in ZF.

Mikko

On 1/24/24 01:27, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 6:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/24/24 01:16, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2024 6:14 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/24 00:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:03 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/23/24 23:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:21 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/23/24 23:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 3:55 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Does the finite string D encode a machine whose direct
>>>>>>>>>> execution halts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you do not believe you are wrong, simply follow the following
>>>>>>>> steps:
>>>>>>>> 1. Directly execute D
>>>>>>>> 2. Wait a few seconds
>>>>>>>> 3. Notice that it halted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H must report in the behavior that it sees, it is not
>>>>>>> allowed to report on the behavior that you imagine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't fucking care. Did you read what I wrote? You didn't read
>>>>>> it. Read it again. I said direct execution.
>>>>>
>>>>> H does not care what you believe it only cares about
>>>>> whether it needs to abort an input to prevent its
>>>>> own infinite execution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't fucking talk about H. READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.
>>>
>>> It NEVER halts unless H sees that D correctly simulated by
>>> H never halts.
>>>
>>
>> I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT H.
>
>
> D and H both NEVER halt (not in a million years)
> unless H sees that D correctly simulated by H
> never halts.
>
>
Does H see that?

On 1/24/24 02:35, olcott wrote:
>
> This proves that even the directly executed D(D)
> never stops running unless aborted later on by H.
> Thus proving that even the directly executed D(D)
> DOES NOT HALT.
>

what the fuck is wrong with you? you've gotten even more unhinged than
before.

When you run D(D), does it halt?

On 2024-01-23 15:14:21 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/23/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-22 18:39:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>>> In a formal theory nothing is semantically anything.
>>
>>> That it the reason why formal theories get confused
>>> and make semantic errors that are invisible to them.
>>
>> As there are no semantics in a formal system there can
>> be no semantic errors. However, it is possible that the
>> intended interpretation is not a model of the system.
>> Then one may hope that a small change will make it useful
>> for its intended purpose.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> True is an inherently semantic concept,

True

> thus logic systems
> always have semantics.

False. Formal systems do not have the concept "true". They may
have a symbol that looks like "true" but it is just a symbol
without meaning.

> The truth tables for propositional
> logic provide the semantics of its operators.

They just define certain relations between formulas of propositional
logic and permit the definitions of tautology and contradiction.
Another apprach is to use axioms and inference rules instead of truth
tables as the formal starting point. Then truth tables can be inferred
from the axioms.

The term "truth table" comes from an interpretation of propositional
logic. But there are other (sometimes useful) interpretations.

> The Tarski undefinability theorem is totally refuted by
> True(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ x) with its corresponding False(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ ~x)

It so happened that Tarski proved his theorem. What happened did
happen, and no refutation or anything else can change that.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 15:59:13 +0000, immibis said:

> On 1/23/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-22 18:39:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In a formal theory nothing is semantically anything.
>>>
>>>> That it the reason why formal theories get confused
>>>> and make semantic errors that are invisible to them.
>>>
>>> As there are no semantics in a formal system there can
>>> be no semantic errors. However, it is possible that the
>>> intended interpretation is not a model of the system.
>>> Then one may hope that a small change will make it useful
>>> for its intended purpose.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>> True is an inherently semantic concept, thus logic systems
>> always have semantics. The truth tables for propositional
>> logic provide the semantics of its operators.
>>
>> The Tarski undefinability theorem is totally refuted by
>> True(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ x) with its corresponding False(L, x) ≡ (L ⊢ ~x)
>>
>
> In which system is ⊢ a logical connective?

It could be a useful relation in some metalogical system.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 15:20:38 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/23/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-22 15:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-21 19:22:22 +0000, wij said:
>>>>
>>>>> I just found an article about the Halting Problem.
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> In the conclusion section:
>>>>> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable, but cannot be
>>>>> for-
>>>>> malised as a consistent specification. It has no model and does not
>>>>> exist as
>>>>> a conceptual object. Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a
>>>>> paradox.
>>>>> The halting problem is universally used in university courses on
>>>>> Computer
>>>>> Science to illustrate the limits of computation. Hehner claims the
>>>>> halting
>>>>> problem is misconceived......
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like what olcott now is claiming. Am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> The error in the article is the claim that an "inconsistent"
>>>> specification is somehow invalid. But it is not.
>>>
>>> So if I asked you: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>> the type mismatch error doesn't prevent you from
>>> providing a correct answer?
>>
>> I doesn't prevent me from providing an answer that I regard correct.
>> Whether you can accept it as a correct answer is your problem, not mine.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> That is not the way that truth really works.

The question was not about how truth works.
It was about how I work.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 21:33:12 +0000, olcott said:

> The behavior that the finite string specifies:
> D correctly simulated by H specifies recursive simulation.
> D correctly simulated by H1 specifies that D halts.

If "D correctly simulated by H" denotes anything it denotes D.
If "D correctly simulated by H1" denotes anything it denotes D.

Mikko

On 2024-01-24 03:51:39 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> Remember, Prolog is limited to Prepositional logic, not even full first
> order, and only for system with a finite domain.

The basic logical system of Prolog is Horn clauses. However, it also
has library predicates (like assert and not and unify_with_occurs_check)
that can break the logic system if used in a wrong place.

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 18:26:24 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/23/2024 11:20 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/23/24 17:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/24 05:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It does seem to solve the halting problem correctly.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. It says that D(D) doesn't halt, but D(D) halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A halt decider must report on the behavior that its finite string
>>> input specifies. Its finite string input specifies that it calls
>>> H in recursive simulation.
>>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Verified facts are (by definition) never wrong.

Verified facts:
(a) D(D) halts.
(b) H(D,D) returns 0.
(c) Somebody said "if D(D) halts and H(D,D) returns 0 then H is not a halt
decider".

Mikko

On 2024-01-23 13:44:32 +0000, immibis said:

> On 1/23/24 04:58, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/22/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/22/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have gone over these details many many thousands of times since 2004.
>>>> That actual question for H is this:
>>>>
>>>> "What correct Boolean value does H return when D is defined to do the
>>>>   opposite of whatever value that H returns?"
>>>
>>> So, you are just admitting that you have been working on a false
>>> premsis for 20 years
>>
>> I merely put the full context of the question posed to H directly in the
>> question the same way that immibis did for the Barber Paradox.
>>
>> The question superficially seems to be: Does the barber shave himself?
>> This is NOT the actual question. immibis poses the actual question
>> with its full context directly in the question.
>>
>> USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
>> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
>>> himself?" has no correct answer.
>>
>
> It has no correct answer because there is no such barber. It is like
> asking if a square circle is red. Square circles do not exist.

In certain sense every answer is correct about a non-existent.
The set of barbers who shave all that do not shave themselves
is a subset of pink fairies, so it is correct to say that a
barber who shaves all that do not shave themselves is a pink
fairy.

Mikko

On 1/24/24 12:50, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-23 18:26:24 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/23/2024 11:20 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/23/24 17:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2024 7:34 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/24 05:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does seem to solve the halting problem correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't. It says that D(D) doesn't halt, but D(D) halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A halt decider must report on the behavior that its finite string
>>>> input specifies. Its finite string input specifies that it calls
>>>> H in recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Verified facts are (by definition) never wrong.
>
> Verified facts:
> (a) D(D) halts.
> (b) H(D,D) returns 0.
> (c) Somebody said "if D(D) halts and H(D,D) returns 0 then H is not a halt
> decider".
>
> Mikko
>

Olcott wants to dispute that D(D) halts, even outside of a simulation.
There can be no saving such an illogical person.
Message-ID: <uoppg5$1gokg$1@dont-email.me>

On 1/24/24 5:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-23 17:26:37 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, immibis wrote:

>>> This is your version. It isn't a halting-problem decider. It's an
>>> Olcott-problem decider. You changed the problem, so it's a different
>>> problem - one which nobody cares about.
>>>
>>
>> All deciders have always been required to report on the properties
>> of their finite string inputs. This means that all halt deciders
>> have always been required to report on the behavior that their
>> finite string inputs specifies.
>
> Not true. Some authors say that a "decider" is any Turing machine
> that, when run with any input, halts in an "accept" state or in a
> "reject" state.
>
> Mikko
>

He sort of has that in the "required to report".

What he misses is that a Foo Decider needs to produce the answer of
Foo(x) when given the description of x as its finite string input.

Turing Machines, shen looking at semantic properties, are always looking
at representations, as you can't give a Turing Machine, an actual Turing
Machine as an input. Syntatic properties can directly refer to
properties of the string itself, and that is part of the difference
between a semantic and a syntactic property.

This holds to natural language to. A Syntactic property of a sentence,
is based on the phyiscal structure of the letters and symbols on the
page. A Semantic property depends on the MEANING that those letters and
symbols create.

Thus, if H is a "Halt Decider" then H([M],[d]), must report on the
halting behavior of M([d]) as that is the DEFINITION of Halting.

Thus, his machines reporting on the supposed correct simulation of their
inputs are not "Halt Deciders" (since that isn't the definiton of
Halting) but PO-Halt Deciders. The fact that the input doesn't actually
fully represent a program means he isn't in computation theory, but in
PO-Computation theory.