On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is not
>>>>>>>>>>> proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider is
>>>>>>>>>>> written in a different language from the language of the
>>>>>>>>>>> program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing
>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is wrong
>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a hierarchy
>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what a
>>>>>>>> "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of "feelings"
>>>>>>>> about the topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but
>>>>>> unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have
>>>>>> NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction doesn't
>>>> mean that something is self-contradictory, but that the thing never
>>>> actually existed.
>>>
>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>
>> Not what I said.
>>
>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical yields a
>> contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>
>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A CONSISTANT
>> SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>
>>>
>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>
>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown that
>> Uncorns exist?
>>
>>
>> what I said.
>>>
>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>
>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus can't
>> be in actual contradiction.
>
> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>
> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>

But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.

When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that compute
the correct answer exists.

That shows the problem is uncomputable, not incoherent.

You are just showing that you don't understand that basic meaning of the
terms youa are using.

On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider is
>>>>>>>>>>>> written in a different language from the language of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is wrong
>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a hierarchy
>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what a
>>>>>>>>> "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of "feelings"
>>>>>>>>> about the topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but
>>>>>>> unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have
>>>>>>> NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction doesn't
>>>>> mean that something is self-contradictory, but that the thing never
>>>>> actually existed.
>>>>
>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>
>>> Not what I said.
>>>
>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical yields a
>>> contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>
>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>
>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown that
>>> Uncorns exist?
>>>
>>>
>>> what I said.
>>>>
>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>
>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus can't
>>> be in actual contradiction.
>>
>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>
>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>
>
> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.

Even misconceptions are real things.

>
> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that compute
> the correct answer exists.
>

H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
contradict H it only contradicts itself.

It is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
knows its values are being contradicted.

I could write an actual H embedded within Ĥ that can
correctly determine that both of its values are contradicted
using the Linz Ĥ template as input. I have already done
this for x86 machine code. I could build a RASP machine
from scratch to implement this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine

So H can do what ZFC does in Russell's paradox and
reject self-contradictory inputs as not in its domain.

> That shows the problem is uncomputable, not incoherent.
>

When every H rejects self-contradictory inputs as not
in its domain then the counter-example input is always
rejected and halting remains computable.

LP = "This sentence is not true."
Boolean True(English, LP) returns false for LP is not true.
Boolean True(English, ~LP) returns false for ~LP is not true.

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn
meaning that Ĥ did not compute that ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.

> You are just showing that you don't understand that basic meaning of the
> terms youa are using.
>

As always mere empty rhetoric entirely bereft of any support reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

Some of the conventional meanings of some of the terms define
misconceptions that must be corrected.

You were trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they do
not even exist as incoherent notions.

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

On 2/27/2024 3:38 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 27/02/24 03:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting problem
>>>>>>>> is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what Olcott thinks
>>>>>>>> he thinks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is not
>>>>>>>> proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider is written
>>>>>>>> in a different language from the language of the program it's
>>>>>>>> supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing complete
>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is wrong with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a hierarchy
>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>
>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what a
>>>>> "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of "feelings"
>>>>> about the topic.
>>>>
>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the halting
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but unless
>>> you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have NOTHING but lies.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>
>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>
>
> An application of a Turing machine to input cannot be
> self-contradictory. Do you know what self-contradictory means?
>

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
Anyone can see that Ĥ does the opposite of whatever value
that its embedded H returns, thus making Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
self-contradictory. Liars can see this too and then lie about it.

I can make a RASP machine that sees this proving that the
Liars are lying. This RASP machine will correctly recognize
the self-contradiction and reject its input as invalid.

H.qy means that it has been computed that the input halts.
H.qn means that cannot be computed that the input halts.

> Self-contradictory means x=¬x
>

No that is merely contradiction.

> Applying Ĥ to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simply results in it halting or not halting. There's
> no self-contradictory. Either Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) halts or it doesn't halt.

In other words you are trying to get away with denying
what everyone can see, that Ĥ was intentionally defined
to do the opposite of whatever value that its embedded H
returns, thus making Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ self-contradictory.

*Your reply to Hehner's email reply to me proved*
*that you are dishonest*

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

On 2/27/2024 3:39 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 27/02/24 04:34, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is not
>>>>>>>>>> proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider is
>>>>>>>>>> written in a different language from the language of the
>>>>>>>>>> program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing complete
>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is wrong with
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a hierarchy
>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what a
>>>>>>> "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of "feelings"
>>>>>>> about the topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the halting
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but
>>>>> unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have NOTHING
>>>>> but lies.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>
>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction doesn't
>>> mean that something is self-contradictory, but that the thing never
>>> actually existed.
>>
>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>
> That's correct. There is no Liar Paradox in mathematical logic because
> it does not exist. Try to write the Liar Paradox as a well-formed
> formula and you will see.
>

"It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the
liar in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself
a sentence x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which
is correlated with x asserts that x is not a true sentence."
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x

That is the Liar Paradox that Tarski Undefinability
Theorem depends on.

Tarski was simply too stupid to understand:
LP = "This sentence is not true."
Boolean True(English, LP) == FALSE meaning that LP is not true
Boolean True(English, ~LP) == FALSE meaning that ~LP is not true

>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.
>>
>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>
>>> There IS NO H, and thus NO H^ to be "self-contradictory"
>>>
>>
>> There is an H and an Ĥ as hypothetical concepts that
>> exist incoherently.
>
> Then you have to make them coherent.
>

Simply recognizing and rejecting epistemological antinomies
makes halting and Truth computable.

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

On 2/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> written in a different language from the language of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is wrong
>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a hierarchy
>>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what a
>>>>>>>>>> "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of
>>>>>>>>>> "feelings" about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but
>>>>>>>> unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have
>>>>>>>> NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction doesn't
>>>>>> mean that something is self-contradictory, but that the thing
>>>>>> never actually existed.
>>>>>
>>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Not what I said.
>>>>
>>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical yields a
>>>> contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>>
>>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown that
>>>> Uncorns exist?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus can't
>>>> be in actual contradiction.
>>>
>>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>>
>>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>>
>>
>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.
>
> Even misconceptions are real things.

Not in a Formal Logic System

>
>>
>> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that compute
>> the correct answer exists.
>>
>
> H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
> determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
> contradict H it only contradicts itself.

So, what answer did H (H^) (H^) give that was right?

Reember, since H^ is built on H, if H (H^) (H^) ends a qy, H^ (H^) (H^)
will also go to qy and then loop, so H was wrong.

If H (H^) (H^) ends at qn, then H^ (H^) (H^) ends at qn and halts, so H
was wrong again,
>
> It is  applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
> H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
> knows its values are being contradicted.

But H^ (H^) (H^) has a consistant result.

Since a blank tape does not represet a "Halting Computation" then

H^ - (the blank tape) can go to qn and halt correctly, as it input
doesn't represent a Halting Computation since it isn't a computation at all.

That means that H^ (H^), which reports on the above computation, should
go to qy and then loop forever,

That means that

H^ (H^) (H^) which asks H^ about the about H^ (H^) should go to qn and
halt and give the correct answer.

This has been explained to you several times before, but apparently such
facts are beyond you comprehension, so you are caught in another lie.

>
> I could write an actual H embedded within Ĥ that can
> correctly determine that both of its values are contradicted
> using the Linz Ĥ template as input. I have already done
> this for x86 machine code. I could build a RASP machine
> from scratch to implement this.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine

Nope.

First, RASP machines don't take "An input" so can't be a Halt Decider
per the definition.

>
> So H can do what ZFC does in Russell's paradox and
> reject self-contradictory inputs as not in its domain.
>

Nope.

Nothing "Self-Contradictory

>> That shows the problem is uncomputable, not incoherent.
>>
>
> When every H rejects self-contradictory inputs as not
> in its domain then the counter-example input is always
> rejected and halting remains computable.

On 2/27/2024 11:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is written in a different language from the language of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a hierarchy
>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what a
>>>>>>>>>>> "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of
>>>>>>>>>>> "feelings" about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but
>>>>>>>>> unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have
>>>>>>>>> NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction doesn't
>>>>>>> mean that something is self-contradictory, but that the thing
>>>>>>> never actually existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical yields
>>>>> a contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>>>
>>>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown that
>>>>> Uncorns exist?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus
>>>>> can't be in actual contradiction.
>>>>
>>>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>>>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>>>
>>>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>>>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>>>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.
>>
>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>
> Not in a Formal Logic System
>
>>
>>>
>>> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that compute
>>> the correct answer exists.
>>>
>>
>> H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
>> determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
>> contradict H it only contradicts itself.
>
> So, what answer did H (H^) (H^) give that was right?
>
> Reember, since H^ is built on H, if H (H^) (H^) ends a qy, H^ (H^) (H^)
> will also go to qy and then loop, so H was wrong.
>
> If H (H^) (H^) ends at qn, then H^ (H^) (H^) ends at qn and halts, so H
> was wrong again,
>>
>> It is  applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
>> H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
>> knows its values are being contradicted.
>
> But H^ (H^) (H^) has a consistant result.
>

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

You are not paying close enough attention I am only focusing
on Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ your version: H^ (H^) (H^) has too may params

> Since a blank tape does not represet a "Halting Computation" then
>
> H^ - (the blank tape) can go to qn and halt correctly, as it input
> doesn't represent a Halting Computation since it isn't a computation at
> all.
>
> That means that H^ (H^), which reports on the above computation, should
> go to qy and then loop forever,
>
> That means that
>
> H^ (H^) (H^) which asks H^ about the about H^ (H^) should go to qn and
> halt and give the correct answer.
>
> This has been explained to you several times before, but apparently such
> facts are beyond you comprehension, so you are caught in another lie.
>
>>
>> I could write an actual H embedded within Ĥ that can
>> correctly determine that both of its values are contradicted
>> using the Linz Ĥ template as input. I have already done
>> this for x86 machine code. I could build a RASP machine
>> from scratch to implement this.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine
>
> Nope.
>
> First, RASP machines don't take "An input" so can't be a Halt Decider
> per the definition.
>
>>
>> So H can do what ZFC does in Russell's paradox and
>> reject self-contradictory inputs as not in its domain.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Nothing "Self-Contradictory
>
>
>>> That shows the problem is uncomputable, not incoherent.
>>>
>>
>> When every H rejects self-contradictory inputs as not
>> in its domain then the counter-example input is always
>> rejected and halting remains computable.
>
> But H^ isn't "Self-Contradictory as shown above.
>
>>
>> LP =  "This sentence is not true."
>> Boolean True(English, LP)  returns false for  LP is not true.
>> Boolean True(English, ~LP) returns false for ~LP is not true.
>>
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn
>> meaning that Ĥ did not compute that ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>
> But H^ applied to (H^) needs to go to qy, as explained above, which is
> correct.
>
>>
>>> You are just showing that you don't understand that basic meaning of
>>> the terms youa are using.
>>>
>>
>> As always mere empty rhetoric entirely bereft of any support reasoning.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>
> which is just showing that you really don't understood anything said to
> you.
>
> Note, you have ignored all the actual rebuttal, showing that you have
> nothing to say aobut it, and thus are conceeding that you are nothing
> but an ignorant pathologica liar.
>
>>
>> Some of the conventional meanings of some of the terms define
>> misconceptions that must be corrected.
>
> You aren't ALLOWED to change the meanings and still stay in the field.
>
>>
>> You were trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they do
>> not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> You are just again showing your stupidity.
>
> The notions may be incoherent, but don't show something incoherent IN
> THE SYSTEM because the things they talk about are not things in the system.
>
> When you show that purple Unicorns being yellow is incoherent, it
> doesn't affect anytning in the system, because there are no unicorns in
> the system.
>
>
>

On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.
>
> Even misconceptions are real things.

Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?

On 27/02/24 17:55, olcott wrote:
> Simply recognizing and rejecting epistemological antinomies
> makes halting and Truth computable.

no it does not:

void D(ptr x) {
if(!IsEpistemologicalAntinomy(x,x)) {
MakeEpistemologicalAntinomy();
}
}

On 2/28/24 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 11:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is written in a different language from the language of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a
>>>>>>>>>>> hierarchy
>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what
>>>>>>>>>>>> a "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "feelings" about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but
>>>>>>>>>> unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have
>>>>>>>>>> NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that something is self-contradictory, but that the
>>>>>>>> thing never actually existed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical yields
>>>>>> a contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>>>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown
>>>>>> that Uncorns exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus
>>>>>> can't be in actual contradiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>>>>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>>>>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>>>>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.
>>>
>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>
>> Not in a Formal Logic System
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that
>>>> compute the correct answer exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>> H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
>>> determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
>>> contradict H it only contradicts itself.
>>
>> So, what answer did H (H^) (H^) give that was right?
>>
>> Reember, since H^ is built on H, if H (H^) (H^) ends a qy, H^ (H^)
>> (H^) will also go to qy and then loop, so H was wrong.
>>
>> If H (H^) (H^) ends at qn, then H^ (H^) (H^) ends at qn and halts, so
>> H was wrong again,
>>>
>>> It is  applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
>>> H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
>>> knows its values are being contradicted.
>>
>> But H^ (H^) (H^) has a consistant result.
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> You are not paying close enough attention I am only focusing
> on Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ your version: H^ (H^) (H^)  has too may params

On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.
>>
>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>
> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>

Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
reply never has existed.

Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
correctly determined to be incoherent.

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

On 28/02/24 18:21, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real things.
>>>
>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>
>> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>>
>
> Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
> they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
> replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
> reply never has existed. >
> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>

Such as a natural number x such that x=1-x, a rainbow which is only one
colour, and a Turing machine H such that H answers the halting problem
correctly in all cases.

On 2/28/2024 12:22 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 28/02/24 18:21, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>
>>> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>>>
>>
>> Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
>> they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
>> replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
>> reply never has existed. >
>> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
>> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>>
>
> Such as a natural number x such that x=1-x, a rainbow which is only one
> colour, and a Turing machine H such that H answers the halting problem
> correctly in all cases.

In the latter case (as professor Hehner specifically agrees)
"the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
something wrong with it."

It took me twenty years to figure out that the notion of ill-formed
question that I refer to below is a self-contradictory question
that is anchored in an epistemological antinomy (self-contradictory
expression).

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

*Direct Link to original message*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+

There is nothing wrong with any of the steps of the proof
of several undecidability proofs besides failing to exclude
epistemological antinomies from the problem domain.

When we try to find the square root of an actual banana
we only fail because there is something wrong with the
problem. The domain of the square-root function does not
include bananas.

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

On 28/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 12:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 18:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>
>>>> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
>>> they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
>>> replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
>>> reply never has existed. >
>>> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
>>> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>>>
>>
>> Such as a natural number x such that x=1-x, a rainbow which is only
>> one colour, and a Turing machine H such that H answers the halting
>> problem correctly in all cases.
>
> In the latter case (as professor Hehner specifically agrees)
> "the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
> something wrong with it."

The only thing wrong with it is that it has no solution.

On 2/28/2024 2:11 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 28/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 12:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 28/02/24 18:21, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
>>>> they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
>>>> replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
>>>> reply never has existed. >
>>>> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
>>>> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Such as a natural number x such that x=1-x, a rainbow which is only
>>> one colour, and a Turing machine H such that H answers the halting
>>> problem correctly in all cases.
>>
>> In the latter case (as professor Hehner specifically agrees)
>> "the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>> something wrong with it."
>
> The only thing wrong with it is that it has no solution.

Yes and that was your same answer for the square-root of a banana
problem thus proving that you are much more of an internet troll
than anyone interested in an honest dialogue.

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

On 28/02/24 21:15, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 2:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 12:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/24 18:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
>>>>> they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
>>>>> replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
>>>>> reply never has existed. >
>>>>> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
>>>>> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such as a natural number x such that x=1-x, a rainbow which is only
>>>> one colour, and a Turing machine H such that H answers the halting
>>>> problem correctly in all cases.
>>>
>>> In the latter case (as professor Hehner specifically agrees)
>>> "the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>> something wrong with it."
>>
>> The only thing wrong with it is that it has no solution.
>
> Yes and that was your same answer for the square-root of a banana
> problem thus proving that you are much more of an internet troll
> than anyone interested in an honest dialogue.

No, the square root of an answer is an invalid question. However, the
square root of -1 (real number) is a valid question that has no answer.

On 28/02/24 22:23, immibis wrote:
> On 28/02/24 21:15, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 2:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 28/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 12:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/24 18:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
>>>>>> they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
>>>>>> replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
>>>>>> reply never has existed. >
>>>>>> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
>>>>>> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as a natural number x such that x=1-x, a rainbow which is only
>>>>> one colour, and a Turing machine H such that H answers the halting
>>>>> problem correctly in all cases.
>>>>
>>>> In the latter case (as professor Hehner specifically agrees)
>>>> "the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>> something wrong with it."
>>>
>>> The only thing wrong with it is that it has no solution.
>>
>> Yes and that was your same answer for the square-root of a banana
>> problem thus proving that you are much more of an internet troll
>> than anyone interested in an honest dialogue.
>
> No, the square root of an answer is an invalid question. However, the
> square root of -1 (real number) is a valid question that has no answer.

Obviously, I meant to write:
No, the square root of a banana is an invalid question. However, the
square root of -1 (real number) is a valid question that has no answer.

On 2/28/2024 3:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 28/02/24 21:15, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 2:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 28/02/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2024 12:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/24 18:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2024 5:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/02/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the natural number x such that x=1-x a real thing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since your claim is the misconceptions are not real things
>>>>>> they never existed in any way shape or form, thus you never
>>>>>> replied to my message and this reply to your non-existent
>>>>>> reply never has existed. >
>>>>>> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
>>>>>> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as a natural number x such that x=1-x, a rainbow which is only
>>>>> one colour, and a Turing machine H such that H answers the halting
>>>>> problem correctly in all cases.
>>>>
>>>> In the latter case (as professor Hehner specifically agrees)
>>>> "the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>> something wrong with it."
>>>
>>> The only thing wrong with it is that it has no solution.
>>
>> Yes and that was your same answer for the square-root of a banana
>> problem thus proving that you are much more of an internet troll
>> than anyone interested in an honest dialogue.
>
> No, the square root of an answer is an invalid question. However, the
> square root of -1 (real number) is a valid question that has no answer.

Or we can "imagine" that it is i.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

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

On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/28/24 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/27/2024 11:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not proven unsolvable in cases where the halting decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is written in a different language from the language of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> hierarchy
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that support
>>>>>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "feelings" about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions, but
>>>>>>>>>>> unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just have
>>>>>>>>>>> NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that something is self-contradictory, but that the
>>>>>>>>> thing never actually existed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical
>>>>>>> yields a contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>>>>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>>>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown
>>>>>>> that Uncorns exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what I said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>>>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus
>>>>>>> can't be in actual contradiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>>>>>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>>>>>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>>>>>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>
>>> Not in a Formal Logic System
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that
>>>>> compute the correct answer exists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
>>>> determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
>>>> contradict H it only contradicts itself.
>>>
>>> So, what answer did H (H^) (H^) give that was right?
>>>
>>> Reember, since H^ is built on H, if H (H^) (H^) ends a qy, H^ (H^)
>>> (H^) will also go to qy and then loop, so H was wrong.
>>>
>>> If H (H^) (H^) ends at qn, then H^ (H^) (H^) ends at qn and halts, so
>>> H was wrong again,
>>>>
>>>> It is  applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
>>>> H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
>>>> knows its values are being contradicted.
>>>
>>> But H^ (H^) (H^) has a consistant result.
>>>
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> You are not paying close enough attention I am only focusing
>> on Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ your version: H^ (H^) (H^)  has too may params
>
> You keep on changing what you terms mean, without notice, so mistakes
> are inevitable.
>
> Shall I send a bill for proofreading?
>
> SO, no H correctly answer H (H^) (H^) and thus by your requirements, no
> H exist, so no self-contradiction exists.

On 2/28/24 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2024 11:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is unsolvable, which apparently contradicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not proven unsolvable in cases where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is written in a different language from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of the program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hierarchy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's essential
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "feelings" about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just
>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that something is self-contradictory, but that
>>>>>>>>>> the thing never actually existed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not what I said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical
>>>>>>>> yields a contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>>>>>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>>>>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown
>>>>>>>> that Uncorns exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what I said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>>>>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus
>>>>>>>> can't be in actual contradiction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>>>>>>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>>>>>>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>>>>>>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>
>>>> Not in a Formal Logic System
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that
>>>>>> compute the correct answer exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
>>>>> determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
>>>>> contradict H it only contradicts itself.
>>>>
>>>> So, what answer did H (H^) (H^) give that was right?
>>>>
>>>> Reember, since H^ is built on H, if H (H^) (H^) ends a qy, H^ (H^)
>>>> (H^) will also go to qy and then loop, so H was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If H (H^) (H^) ends at qn, then H^ (H^) (H^) ends at qn and halts,
>>>> so H was wrong again,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is  applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
>>>>> H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
>>>>> knows its values are being contradicted.
>>>>
>>>> But H^ (H^) (H^) has a consistant result.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> You are not paying close enough attention I am only focusing
>>> on Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ your version: H^ (H^) (H^)  has too may params
>>
>> You keep on changing what you terms mean, without notice, so mistakes
>> are inevitable.
>>
>> Shall I send a bill for proofreading?
>>
>> SO, no H correctly answer H (H^) (H^) and thus by your requirements,
>> no H exist, so no self-contradiction exists.
>
> *Maybe this is the best notational convention*
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn  // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ *Is not self-contradictory*

On 2/28/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/28/24 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/28/24 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2024 11:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is unsolvable, which apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts what Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not proven unsolvable in cases where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is written in a different language from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of the program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hierarchy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "feelings" about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that something is self-contradictory, but that
>>>>>>>>>>> the thing never actually existed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not what I said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical
>>>>>>>>> yields a contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>>>>>>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>>>>>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown
>>>>>>>>> that Uncorns exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>>>>>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus
>>>>>>>>> can't be in actual contradiction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>>>>>>>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>>>>>>>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>>>>>>>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in a Formal Logic System
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that
>>>>>>> compute the correct answer exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
>>>>>> determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
>>>>>> contradict H it only contradicts itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what answer did H (H^) (H^) give that was right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Reember, since H^ is built on H, if H (H^) (H^) ends a qy, H^ (H^)
>>>>> (H^) will also go to qy and then loop, so H was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) ends at qn, then H^ (H^) (H^) ends at qn and halts,
>>>>> so H was wrong again,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is  applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
>>>>>> H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
>>>>>> knows its values are being contradicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> But H^ (H^) (H^) has a consistant result.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> You are not paying close enough attention I am only focusing
>>>> on Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ your version: H^ (H^) (H^)  has too may params
>>>
>>> You keep on changing what you terms mean, without notice, so mistakes
>>> are inevitable.
>>>
>>> Shall I send a bill for proofreading?
>>>
>>> SO, no H correctly answer H (H^) (H^) and thus by your requirements,
>>> no H exist, so no self-contradiction exists.
>>
>> *Maybe this is the best notational convention*
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn  // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ *Is not self-contradictory*
>
> But always gets the answer wrong
>
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ contradicts Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (itself)
>>
>
> But H^ isn't a "decider" so isn't being asked a question.
>
> Note, Ĥ.Hq0 is NOT Ĥ, so Ĥ is NOT "Self-Contradictory".

On 2/28/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/24 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2024 11:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/24 12:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-25 12:33:19 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is unsolvable, which apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts what Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not proven unsolvable in cases where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is written in a different language from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of the program it's supposed to be deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is partly true. If the latter language is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its halting problem may be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His most relevant belief (and professor Stoddart
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concurs) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem cannot be solved because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is meaningless, unless they can state WHAT is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When speaking with people one must frame the ideas in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hierarchy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of the idea first and then the details that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this gist progressively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis could not understand that professor Hehner's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that he espoused in many papers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was that there is something wrong with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that they have shown mis-understandings about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a "Computation" is, doesn't make them a good source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "feelings" about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that there really is something wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may THINK so, because you have wrong presuppositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but unless you can actually PROVE it to be wrong, you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have NOTHING but lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a halt decider is assumed to be required to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computation that its input represents that means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is reporting on itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That means that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ASSUME the existance of something, a contradiction
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that something is self-contradictory, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the thing never actually existed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By your reasoning the Liar Paradox does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a consistent system of logic, with an added hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>> yields a contradiction, that hypothetical is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suppose you could say the Liar Paradox doesn't exist IN A
>>>>>>>>>> CONSISTANT SYSTEM, as it was defined out of it by consistancy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we have a set of hypothetical concepts that
>>>>>>>>>>> specify incoherence these incoherent concepts do exist.ot
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So If we assume that Purple Unicorns are yellow, we have shown
>>>>>>>>>> that Uncorns exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can see this incoherence and can't just close our
>>>>>>>>>>> eyes and pretend it does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except the problem is that your H and H^ don't exist, and thus
>>>>>>>>>> can't be in actual contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The incoherent notions of H and Ĥ do exist as incoherent
>>>>>>>>> notions that can be verified to be incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are trying to get away with claiming that incoherent
>>>>>>>>> notions cannot be verified as incoherent because they
>>>>>>>>> do not even exist as incoherent notions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, being non-existant, don't actually say anything about real
>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even misconceptions are real things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in a Formal Logic System
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you do the statements right, you can show that no H that
>>>>>>>> compute the correct answer exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H can do just fine, H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can correctly
>>>>>>> determine the halt status of its input. Ĥ does not
>>>>>>> contradict H it only contradicts itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what answer did H (H^) (H^) give that was right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reember, since H^ is built on H, if H (H^) (H^) ends a qy, H^ (H^)
>>>>>> (H^) will also go to qy and then loop, so H was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) ends at qn, then H^ (H^) (H^) ends at qn and halts,
>>>>>> so H was wrong again,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is  applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is self contradictory.
>>>>>>> H embedded within Ĥ can see what humans can see, thus
>>>>>>> knows its values are being contradicted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But H^ (H^) (H^) has a consistant result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not paying close enough attention I am only focusing
>>>>> on Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ your version: H^ (H^) (H^)  has too may params
>>>>
>>>> You keep on changing what you terms mean, without notice, so
>>>> mistakes are inevitable.
>>>>
>>>> Shall I send a bill for proofreading?
>>>>
>>>> SO, no H correctly answer H (H^) (H^) and thus by your requirements,
>>>> no H exist, so no self-contradiction exists.
>>>
>>> *Maybe this is the best notational convention*
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy  // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn  // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ *Is not self-contradictory*
>>
>> But always gets the answer wrong
>>
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ contradicts Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (itself)
>>>
>>
>> But H^ isn't a "decider" so isn't being asked a question.
>>
>> Note, Ĥ.Hq0 is NOT Ĥ, so Ĥ is NOT "Self-Contradictory".
>
> My new post makes this post moot
>

On 2024-02-28 17:21:55 +0000, olcott said:

> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
> correctly determined to be incoherent.

No, that is not what the word means. A misconception is a thought
that differs from reality. It may be coherent and its coherence
or truthfulness may be undetermied or incorrectly determined.

--
Mikko

On 28/02/24 23:06, olcott wrote:
> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ *Is not self-contradictory*
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ contradicts Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (itself)

Yup, Ĥ is wrong and it does not correctly solve the problem because it
is wrong. all possible Ĥs are wrong and therefore the problem cannot be
solved.

On 2/29/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 17:21:55 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> Alternatively misconceptions are thoughts that have been
>> correctly determined to be incoherent.
>
> No, that is not what the word means. A misconception is a thought
> that differs from reality. It may be coherent and its coherence
> or truthfulness may be undetermied or incorrectly determined.
>

We are not referring to reality here we are referring to sets of
ideas that fit coherently together or not. The coherence theory
of truth refers to the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic
distinction. The correspondence theory of truth refers to the synthetic
side, AKA physical reality.

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

On 2/29/2024 4:30 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 28/02/24 23:06, olcott wrote:
>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ *Is not self-contradictory*
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ contradicts Ĥ.Hq0 applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (itself)
>
> Yup, Ĥ is wrong and it does not correctly solve the problem because it
> is wrong. all possible Ĥs are wrong and therefore the problem cannot be
> solved.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
the actual behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩. We already know that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must
transition to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn, H merely needs to see which one.

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