On 2/24/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>> *If you disagree then this disagreement is either a despicable*
>> *lie or you have alternative sound reasoning why Ȟ cannot*
>> *answer correctly*
>>
>
> Halt Deciding is impossible to do in the general case, because the
> decider needs to be able to handle EVERY case, even cases where the
> input can be specially crafted based on the design of that decider.
>

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

*That halting cannot be computed because halting is not*
*computable and every other isomorphic answer is rejected*
*in advance as circular*

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

On 2/24/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>> *If you disagree then this disagreement is either a despicable*
>>> *lie or you have alternative sound reasoning why Ȟ cannot*
>>> *answer correctly*
>>>
>>
>> Halt Deciding is impossible to do in the general case, because the
>> decider needs to be able to handle EVERY case, even cases where the
>> input can be specially crafted based on the design of that decider.
>>
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>
> *That halting cannot be computed because halting is not*
> *computable and every other isomorphic answer is rejected*
> *in advance as circular*
>

Great.

YOU NOW AGREE THAT HALTING IS NON-COMPUTABLE.

That is EXACTLY the result of the Halting Theorem.

What took you so long to get that answer.

Note, being Non-computable doesn't mean it is an invalid question.

Wanting to know if a computation will halt is a valuable peace of
information.

I presume that means that you also are now accepting all the related
things like most formal logic system are incomplete, becuase there
exists True Statments in them that are not Provable.

(one proof of that follows from the Halting Theorem).

It also means that a computable Truth Predicate can not exist, as such a
thing could be a Halt Decider, which you just admitted can't exist.

I wonder if you reaize what you just admitted, or are you going to pull
at Trump and say that isn't what you were saying.

On 2/24/2024 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> *If you disagree then this disagreement is either a despicable*
>>>> *lie or you have alternative sound reasoning why Ȟ cannot*
>>>> *answer correctly*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Halt Deciding is impossible to do in the general case, because the
>>> decider needs to be able to handle EVERY case, even cases where the
>>> input can be specially crafted based on the design of that decider.
>>>
>>
>> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
>> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
>> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>>
>> *That halting cannot be computed because halting is not*
>> *computable and every other isomorphic answer is rejected*
>> *in advance as circular*
>>
>
> Great.
>
>
> YOU NOW AGREE THAT HALTING IS NON-COMPUTABLE.

*SO THAT YOUR ADD CAN PAY ATTENTION*
*SO THAT YOUR ADD CAN PAY ATTENTION*
*SO THAT YOUR ADD CAN PAY ATTENTION*

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?

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

On 2/24/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>> *If you disagree then this disagreement is either a despicable*
>>>>> *lie or you have alternative sound reasoning why Ȟ cannot*
>>>>> *answer correctly*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Halt Deciding is impossible to do in the general case, because the
>>>> decider needs to be able to handle EVERY case, even cases where the
>>>> input can be specially crafted based on the design of that decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
>>> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
>>> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>>>
>>> *That halting cannot be computed because halting is not*
>>> *computable and every other isomorphic answer is rejected*
>>> *in advance as circular*
>>>
>>
>> Great.
>>
>>
>> YOU NOW AGREE THAT HALTING IS NON-COMPUTABLE.
>
> *SO THAT YOUR ADD CAN PAY ATTENTION*
> *SO THAT YOUR ADD CAN PAY ATTENTION*
> *SO THAT YOUR ADD CAN PAY ATTENTION*
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>
> What is it specifically about Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ that
> causes none of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ
> to derive an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ?
>

Why do you need to know?

You sound like a 2 year old.

You have admitted that we can't build an acual Halt Decider.

Why do you need to know why a particular one failed?

On 25/02/24 02:27, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 7:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2021 7:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a computation only stops running because its simulation was
>>>>>>>>>>> aborted this counts as a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>> Me: Every computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a
>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>       computation.
>>>>>>>>>> You: OK
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A computation having its simulation aborted never halts even
>>>>>>>>> though it
>>>>>>>>> stops running. Only computation that stop running without
>>>>>>>>> having their
>>>>>>>>> simulation aborted are halting computations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.  Stop trying to hide that fact in waffle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true. Is indeed not true, yet the fact
>>>>>>> that its assertion is satisfied does not make the sentence
>>>>>>> true. This seems over your head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that Ȟ either halts or fails to halt
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that Ȟ WILL either Halt or not based on what TURING MACHINE
>>>>>> you make H to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true
>>>>> yet you cannot understand how that does not make it true.
>>>>
>>>> And a meaningless red herring since we are talking about program
>>>> behavior.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When one is under the naive impression that when-so-ever
>>>>> the assertion of a statement is satisfied then that always
>>>>> makes the expression true, they get these things incorrectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true thus
>>>>> fully satisfying the assertion made by LP, yet this
>>>>> still does not make the LP true.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that Ȟ halts or fails to halt is isomorphic
>>>>> to the Liar Paradox actually being untrue. Even though
>>>>> the Liar Paradox is actually untrue it remains neither
>>>>> true nor false.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Since to even ask the question about Ȟ, we first needed to
>>>> define it, which mean we first needed to define which H we are using.
>>>>
>>>> Thus Ȟ (Ȟ) is a specific computation with a specific behavior and
>>>> thus the specific question has an exact right answer.
>>>
>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> And our specification is OBJECTIVE
>>
>
> The specification <is> Not Hehner(objective)

Hehner agrees that the Turing machine halting problem is an objective
specification.

On 2/25/2024 7:58 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 25/02/24 02:27, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 7:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2021 7:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When a computation only stops running because its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted this counts as a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Me: Every computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a
>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>       computation.
>>>>>>>>>>> You: OK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A computation having its simulation aborted never halts even
>>>>>>>>>> though it
>>>>>>>>>> stops running. Only computation that stop running without
>>>>>>>>>> having their
>>>>>>>>>> simulation aborted are halting computations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.  Stop trying to hide that fact in waffle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true. Is indeed not true, yet the fact
>>>>>>>> that its assertion is satisfied does not make the sentence
>>>>>>>> true. This seems over your head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that Ȟ either halts or fails to halt
>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that Ȟ WILL either Halt or not based on what TURING
>>>>>>> MACHINE you make H to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true
>>>>>> yet you cannot understand how that does not make it true.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a meaningless red herring since we are talking about program
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When one is under the naive impression that when-so-ever
>>>>>> the assertion of a statement is satisfied then that always
>>>>>> makes the expression true, they get these things incorrectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true thus
>>>>>> fully satisfying the assertion made by LP, yet this
>>>>>> still does not make the LP true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that Ȟ halts or fails to halt is isomorphic
>>>>>> to the Liar Paradox actually being untrue. Even though
>>>>>> the Liar Paradox is actually untrue it remains neither
>>>>>> true nor false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Since to even ask the question about Ȟ, we first needed to
>>>>> define it, which mean we first needed to define which H we are using.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus Ȟ (Ȟ) is a specific computation with a specific behavior and
>>>>> thus the specific question has an exact right answer.
>>>>
>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> And our specification is OBJECTIVE
>>>
>>
>> The specification <is> Not Hehner(objective)
>
> Hehner agrees that the Turing machine halting problem is an objective
> specification.

*He does not*
A specification is subjective if the specified behavior
varies depending on the agent that performs it. (Hehner:2017)

Objective and Subjective Specifications
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

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

On 2/25/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 7:58 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 25/02/24 02:27, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 7:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2021 7:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a computation only stops running because its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted this counts as a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Me: Every computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>       computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You: OK
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A computation having its simulation aborted never halts even
>>>>>>>>>>> though it
>>>>>>>>>>> stops running. Only computation that stop running without
>>>>>>>>>>> having their
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation aborted are halting computations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.  Stop trying to hide that fact in waffle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true. Is indeed not true, yet the fact
>>>>>>>>> that its assertion is satisfied does not make the sentence
>>>>>>>>> true. This seems over your head.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that Ȟ either halts or fails to halt
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that Ȟ WILL either Halt or not based on what TURING
>>>>>>>> MACHINE you make H to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true
>>>>>>> yet you cannot understand how that does not make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a meaningless red herring since we are talking about program
>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When one is under the naive impression that when-so-ever
>>>>>>> the assertion of a statement is satisfied then that always
>>>>>>> makes the expression true, they get these things incorrectly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true thus
>>>>>>> fully satisfying the assertion made by LP, yet this
>>>>>>> still does not make the LP true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that Ȟ halts or fails to halt is isomorphic
>>>>>>> to the Liar Paradox actually being untrue. Even though
>>>>>>> the Liar Paradox is actually untrue it remains neither
>>>>>>> true nor false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Since to even ask the question about Ȟ, we first needed to
>>>>>> define it, which mean we first needed to define which H we are using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus Ȟ (Ȟ) is a specific computation with a specific behavior and
>>>>>> thus the specific question has an exact right answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> And our specification is OBJECTIVE
>>>>
>>>
>>> The specification <is> Not Hehner(objective)
>>
>> Hehner agrees that the Turing machine halting problem is an objective
>> specification.
>
> *He does not*
>    A specification is subjective if the specified behavior
>    varies depending on the agent that performs it. (Hehner:2017)
>
> Objective and Subjective Specifications
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>

And what about the "Behavior of the specific compuation described by the
input" is depending on the agent looking at it?

Remember, The Computation is built on a Turing Machine appied to a tape,
and the Turing Machine has a SPECIFIC set of steps encoded in it.

The machine Ȟ is defined on a SPECIFIC H, independent on what H you are
giving it to, and thus independent of which H you give it to.

Your STRAWMAN where Ȟ isn't an actual Computation, but just a template
that changes based on who it is gien to, isn't a valid target of the
Halting Question. IT needs to be connected to a SPECIFIC H, at which
point it is, and that result can be given to ANY prospective Halt Decider.

Note, your x86UTM example, by your own words, can't do that, so is
proved to not be a Turing Machine Equivalent system.

On 25/02/24 17:30, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 7:58 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 25/02/24 02:27, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 7:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2021 7:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a computation only stops running because its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted this counts as a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Me: Every computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>       computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You: OK
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A computation having its simulation aborted never halts even
>>>>>>>>>>> though it
>>>>>>>>>>> stops running. Only computation that stop running without
>>>>>>>>>>> having their
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation aborted are halting computations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.  Stop trying to hide that fact in waffle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true. Is indeed not true, yet the fact
>>>>>>>>> that its assertion is satisfied does not make the sentence
>>>>>>>>> true. This seems over your head.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that Ȟ either halts or fails to halt
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that Ȟ WILL either Halt or not based on what TURING
>>>>>>>> MACHINE you make H to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true
>>>>>>> yet you cannot understand how that does not make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a meaningless red herring since we are talking about program
>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When one is under the naive impression that when-so-ever
>>>>>>> the assertion of a statement is satisfied then that always
>>>>>>> makes the expression true, they get these things incorrectly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true." is indeed not true thus
>>>>>>> fully satisfying the assertion made by LP, yet this
>>>>>>> still does not make the LP true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that Ȟ halts or fails to halt is isomorphic
>>>>>>> to the Liar Paradox actually being untrue. Even though
>>>>>>> the Liar Paradox is actually untrue it remains neither
>>>>>>> true nor false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Since to even ask the question about Ȟ, we first needed to
>>>>>> define it, which mean we first needed to define which H we are using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus Ȟ (Ȟ) is a specific computation with a specific behavior and
>>>>>> thus the specific question has an exact right answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> And our specification is OBJECTIVE
>>>>
>>>
>>> The specification <is> Not Hehner(objective)
>>
>> Hehner agrees that the Turing machine halting problem is an objective
>> specification.
>
> *He does not*
>    A specification is subjective if the specified behavior
>    varies depending on the agent that performs it. (Hehner:2017)

I asked him. He agrees that the Turing machine halting problem is an
objective specification. His papers are only talking about other similar
problems which might be subjective.

On 24/02/24 22:27, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2021 7:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 7/19/2021 7:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> When a computation only stops running because its simulation was
>>>>> aborted this counts as a computation that never halts.
>>>> Me: Every computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a halting
>>>>       computation.
>>>> You: OK
>>>
>>> A computation having its simulation aborted never halts even though it
>>> stops running. Only computation that stop running without having their
>>> simulation aborted are halting computations.
>>
>> P(P) halts.  Stop trying to hide that fact in waffle.
>
> "This sentence is not true. Is indeed not true, yet the fact
> that its assertion is satisfied does not make the sentence
> true. This seems over your head.

Wrong. A sentence whose assertion is satisfied is true. That is what
"true" means. It is like saying that 1+1 does not equal 2.