On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>
>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> H only returns one value
>>>
>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>
>>
>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>> above D" - your words make no sense.
>
> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>

You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
construction doesn't make any reference to H.

On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>
>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>
>>>
>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>
>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>
>
> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
> construction doesn't make any reference to H.

Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>
>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>
>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>
>>
>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>
> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>
Why do you say things are factually incorrect when you know they are
factually correct? Do you not understand the basic concept of the proof?

On 1/5/2024 1:25 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>
>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>
>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>
> Why do you say things are factually incorrect when you know they are
> factually correct? Do you not understand the basic concept of the proof?

The proof is like asking: What time is it (yes or no)?
and ruling that anyone not providing a correct answer must be stupid.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 1:25 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>>
>>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>> Why do you say things are factually incorrect when you know they are
>> factually correct? Do you not understand the basic concept of the proof?
>
> The proof is like asking: What time is it (yes or no)?
> and ruling that anyone not providing a correct answer must be stupid.
>

No, it is nothing like that.

Showing you ARE stupid.

On 1/5/2024 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 1:25 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>>
>>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>> Why do you say things are factually incorrect when you know they are
>> factually correct? Do you not understand the basic concept of the proof?
>
> The proof is like asking: What time is it (yes or no)?
> and ruling that anyone not providing a correct answer must be stupid.
>

The question: What time is it (yes or no)?
Provides a stark example establishing that incorrect questions do exist.

The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
shave themselves". The question is, Does the barber shave himself?
Provides an example of a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?

Provides an example of a self-contradictory question only when posed to
Jack. Linguistics understands that the discourse context of who is asked
a question does sometimes change the meaning of the question.

The fact that anyone besides Jack can correctly answer the question
proves that it is not the same question as the question posed to Jack
even though it has the exact same words.

Jack's question posed to Jack is precisely isomorphic to input D to
termination analyzer H.

int D(ptr x)
{ int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

void main()
{ H(D,D);
}

Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
Provides an example of a self-contradictory question only when posed to H.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/24 1:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/5/2024 1:25 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist
>>>>>>> for the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>
>>> Why do you say things are factually incorrect when you know they are
>>> factually correct? Do you not understand the basic concept of the proof?
>>
>> The proof is like asking: What time is it (yes or no)?
>> and ruling that anyone not providing a correct answer must be stupid.
>>
>
> The question: What time is it (yes or no)?
> Provides a stark example establishing that incorrect questions do exist.

Yes, but doesn't est

>
> The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
> shave themselves". The question is, Does the barber shave himself?
> Provides an example of a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

No, the QUESTION isn't the problem, it is the set definition in the
first place.

>
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>
> Provides an example of a self-contradictory question only when posed to
> Jack. Linguistics understands that the discourse context of who is asked
> a question does sometimes change the meaning of the question.

SOMETIMES. Note the diffence in class between Jack and H. Jack is a
volitional being, and thus has last minute choice, and THAT creates the
contradiction.

REAL Linquististics understands this distinction.

>
> The fact that anyone besides Jack can correctly answer the question
> proves that it is not the same question as the question posed to Jack
> even though it has the exact same words.

Right, as explained above.

Note, "Does the machine descrbied by this input Halt" has none of the
characteristics that lead to self-contradiction.

>
> Jack's question posed to Jack is precisely isomorphic to input D to
> termination analyzer H.

Nope, as explained, H isn't a volitional, and thus there IS a correct
answer to the behavior of the SPECIFIC D built on a SPECIFIC H.

>
> int D(ptr x)
> {
>   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>   if (Halt_Status)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
>   return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> void main()
> {
>   H(D,D);
> }
>
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
> Provides an example of a self-contradictory question only when posed to H.
>
>

But, you have claimed that your "D" isn't actually a program, so you
can't even ask the question, as "executing" and thus Halting is a
property of PROGRAMS.

Also, D is SUPPOSED to have its own copy of H in it, since your doesn't,
your program model fails to match that of the proof. Because of your
ERROR, your logic system is not allowed to ask about variations on H, as
that changes the question, and suddenly you get into the case that you
admit you are in, that D isn't a "Program" any more, and thus for YOUR
"D", you can't actually ask the Halting QUestion, since it isn't a
program, and thus your whole arguement fails on a category error.

When you fix that, and have D call H_Copy, its own private copy of H,
thus making D an actual program, you will find that some H's (like your
H1 example) give the right answer, but it just happens that the orignial
H, doesn't. not because there is something about the question that says
there isn't a correct answer to the question, but just because H gives
the wrong answer.

So, all you have done is proven that you have been lying for years that
you have been following the rules, but that you have actually been lying
about everything.

You also show that you have great errors in your understanding of
Linguistics, I don't know if it is based on the same errors that you
have in Computation Theory, where you decided that the field is best
studied by guessing as to the basic properties and then making up your
own ideas as you go.

Either way, you have just proved yourself to be an ignorant hypocritical
pathological lying idiot.

On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>
>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>
>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>
>>
>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>
> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>

You do not understand that the result of Peter Linz's D construction
makes no reference to H. The construction uses H but the result does
not. There is nothing like H(D,D) that refers to the memory address of
H. There is no CALL H instruction.

On 1/5/24 19:30, olcott wrote:
>
> The question: What time is it (yes or no)?
> Provides a stark example establishing that incorrect questions do exist.

"Does D(D) halt?" is a correct question.

>
> The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
> shave themselves". The question is, Does the barber shave himself?
> Provides an example of a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
> The barber doesn't exist.

> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>
Yes, but he won't.

> Provides an example of a self-contradictory question only when posed to
> Jack. Linguistics understands that the discourse context of who is asked
> a question does sometimes change the meaning of the question.
>
"Does D(D) halt?" isn't self-contradictory.

> The fact that anyone besides Jack can correctly answer the question
> proves that it is not the same question as the question posed to Jack
> even though it has the exact same words.
>
"Does D(D) halt?" isn't subjective.

> Jack's question posed to Jack is precisely isomorphic to input D to
> termination analyzer H.

Wrong.

>
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?

Tell me: Does it?

On 1/5/2024 3:30 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>
>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>
>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>
>
> You do not understand that the result of Peter Linz's D construction
> makes no reference to H. The construction uses H but the result does
> not. There is nothing like H(D,D) that refers to the memory address of
> H. There is no CALL H instruction.

The Peter Linz proof is focused on whether or not a halt decider named
H can possibly exist. The key point is that the copy of H that is
embedded within Ĥ cannot correctly determine the halt status of the
machine that it is embedded within.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

It never occurs to anyone that halt deciders are not
supposed to determine the halt status of the computation
that they are embedded within.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/2024 3:32 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/5/24 19:30, olcott wrote:
>>
>> The question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>> Provides a stark example establishing that incorrect questions do exist.
>
> "Does D(D) halt?" is a correct question.
>
>>
>> The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
>> shave themselves". The question is, Does the barber shave himself?
>> Provides an example of a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>> The barber doesn't exist.
>
>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>
> Yes, but he won't.

Why answer so stupidly?
It is freaking not that he won't it is that both yes and no are the
wrong answer when the question is posed to Jack.

The linguistic discourse analysis context of who as asked Jack's
question changes the meaning of the same word-for-word question.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/24 23:14, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 3:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 19:30, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> The question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>> Provides a stark example establishing that incorrect questions do exist.
>>
>> "Does D(D) halt?" is a correct question.
>>
>>>
>>> The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
>>> shave themselves". The question is, Does the barber shave himself?
>>> Provides an example of a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>> The barber doesn't exist.
>>
>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>
>> Yes, but he won't.
>
> Why answer so stupidly?
> It is freaking not that he won't it is that both yes and no are the
> wrong answer when the question is posed to Jack.

Jack can give wrong answers.

>
> The linguistic discourse analysis context of who as asked Jack's
> question changes the meaning of the same word-for-word question.
>
No.

On 1/5/24 23:11, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 3:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>>
>>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>>
>> You do not understand that the result of Peter Linz's D construction
>> makes no reference to H. The construction uses H but the result does
>> not. There is nothing like H(D,D) that refers to the memory address of
>> H. There is no CALL H instruction.
>
> The Peter Linz proof is focused on whether or not a halt decider named
> H can possibly exist. The key point is that the copy of H that is
> embedded within Ĥ cannot correctly determine the halt status of the
> machine that it is embedded within.
>

That's right.

> It never occurs to anyone that halt deciders are not
> supposed to determine the halt status of the computation
> that they are embedded within.
>

It tries to determine the halt status of a *copy* of the computation
it's embedded within.

Anyway, how does it know it's embedded? It doesn't.

On 1/5/24 5:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 3:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist for
>>>>>> the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>>
>>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>>
>> You do not understand that the result of Peter Linz's D construction
>> makes no reference to H. The construction uses H but the result does
>> not. There is nothing like H(D,D) that refers to the memory address of
>> H. There is no CALL H instruction.
>
> The Peter Linz proof is focused on whether or not a halt decider named
> H can possibly exist. The key point is that the copy of H that is
> embedded within Ĥ cannot correctly determine the halt status of the
> machine that it is embedded within.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> It never occurs to anyone that halt deciders are not
> supposed to determine the halt status of the computation
> that they are embedded within.
>
>

No, you are just showing you don't understand how computations work.

You can't ask the question about "the computation that they are embedded
within", but you can ask about the computation described by your input,
even if it happens to be a computation that happens to embed a copy of
you within it.

This is part of the power of Turing Machines, and that power makes some
things undecidable (meaning the correct answer is not computable).

This is like it turns out that the Natural Numbers introduce a
mathematics powerful enough to express concepts which the finiteness of
logic can not prove.

Both of these come about, in part, to the fact that you have a set of
objects that are all finite, but the set itself is infinite, and your
results need to be done in finite steps (computation or proof). The
fields can generate questions whose answers require, in principle, the
entire set to answer, and since that set isn't finite, the scan can not
be done in finite "time".

You seem to have the same mind block aw WM, not understanding the nature
of the "infinite" and it just blows away your logic.

On 1/5/2024 4:33 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/5/24 23:14, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/5/2024 3:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/5/24 19:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>> Provides a stark example establishing that incorrect questions do
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> "Does D(D) halt?" is a correct question.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not
>>>> shave themselves". The question is, Does the barber shave himself?
>>>> Provides an example of a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>> The barber doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>
>>> Yes, but he won't.
>>
>> Why answer so stupidly?
>> It is freaking not that he won't it is that both yes and no are the
>> wrong answer when the question is posed to Jack.
>
> Jack can give wrong answers.
>
>>
>> The linguistic discourse analysis context of who as asked Jack's
>> question changes the meaning of the same word-for-word question.
>>
> No.

That anyone besides Jack can answer this question correctly:
"Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?"

and Jack cannot answer that question correctly conclusively
proves that the same word-for-word question has a different
meaning when posed to Jack than when posed to anyone else.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/2024 4:34 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/5/24 23:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/5/2024 3:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/5/24 06:28, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2024 11:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/5/24 01:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/24 23:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 2:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/24 19:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting question is not self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void main()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That D contradicts both values that H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>> that H/D is self-referential.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H only returns one value
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of every possible H that can possibly exist for the
>>>>>>>> above D no H can possibly return any value corresponding
>>>>>>>> to the behavior of the direct execution of D(D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does that mean? "every possible H that can possibly exist
>>>>>>> for the above D" - your words make no sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the above template (same idea as the Peter Linz Template)
>>>>>> Try and figure out the body of the C function code for H such
>>>>>> that H returns a value corresponding to the behavior of the
>>>>>> direct execution of D(D) when D has been intentionally defined
>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are very far off base because the result of Peter Linz's D
>>>>> construction doesn't make any reference to H.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say things that you know are factually incorrect?
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do not understand that the result of Peter Linz's D construction
>>> makes no reference to H. The construction uses H but the result does
>>> not. There is nothing like H(D,D) that refers to the memory address
>>> of H. There is no CALL H instruction.
>>
>> The Peter Linz proof is focused on whether or not a halt decider named
>> H can possibly exist. The key point is that the copy of H that is
>> embedded within Ĥ cannot correctly determine the halt status of the
>> machine that it is embedded within.
>>
>
> That's right.
>
>> It never occurs to anyone that halt deciders are not
>> supposed to determine the halt status of the computation
>> that they are embedded within.
>>
>
> It tries to determine the halt status of a *copy* of the computation
> it's embedded within.
>
> Anyway, how does it know it's embedded? It doesn't.
>

If embedded_H simulates its input then we can certainly
see that this simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly terminate normally.

*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/24 23:57, olcott wrote:
> and Jack cannot answer that question correctly conclusively
> proves that the same word-for-word question has a different
> meaning when posed to Jack than when posed to anyone else.
>

No, it conclusively proves that Jack cannot answer that question correctly.

On 1/6/24 00:03, olcott wrote:
> If embedded_H simulates its input then we can certainly
> see that this simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly terminate normally.
>
> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>

If H doesn't terminate normally then it doesn't solve the halting problem.

On 1/5/2024 5:17 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/5/24 23:57, olcott wrote:
>> and Jack cannot answer that question correctly conclusively
>> proves that the same word-for-word question has a different
>> meaning when posed to Jack than when posed to anyone else.
>>
>
> No, it conclusively proves that Jack cannot answer that question correctly.

Why can't Jack answer the question correctly?

When we see the example question: What time is it (yes or no)?
Then it is clear that incorrect questions do exist.

*The logical law of polar questions copyright 2015 PL Olcott*
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/2024 5:18 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/6/24 00:03, olcott wrote:
>> If embedded_H simulates its input then we can certainly
>> see that this simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>
>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>
> If H doesn't terminate normally then it doesn't solve the halting problem.

embedded_H does terminate normally.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/6/24 00:30, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 5:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/5/24 23:57, olcott wrote:
>>> and Jack cannot answer that question correctly conclusively
>>> proves that the same word-for-word question has a different
>>> meaning when posed to Jack than when posed to anyone else.
>>>
>>
>> No, it conclusively proves that Jack cannot answer that question
>> correctly.
>
> Why can't Jack answer the question correctly?

Because "yes" is incorrect and "no" is incorrect.

>
> When we see the example question: What time is it (yes or no)?
> Then it is clear that incorrect questions do exist.
>

That's just a syntax error.

On 1/6/24 00:32, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 5:18 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 00:03, olcott wrote:
>>> If embedded_H simulates its input then we can certainly
>>> see that this simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>
>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>
>> If H doesn't terminate normally then it doesn't solve the halting
>> problem.
>
> embedded_H does terminate normally.

Then why did you say it didn't?

On 1/5/2024 5:38 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/6/24 00:30, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/5/2024 5:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/5/24 23:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> and Jack cannot answer that question correctly conclusively
>>>> proves that the same word-for-word question has a different
>>>> meaning when posed to Jack than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it conclusively proves that Jack cannot answer that question
>>> correctly.
>>
>> Why can't Jack answer the question correctly?
>
> Because "yes" is incorrect and "no" is incorrect.

Right. And Yes/No questions that lack correct yes/no
answers <are> incorrect questions.

>
>>
>> When we see the example question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>> Then it is clear that incorrect questions do exist.
>>
>
> That's just a syntax error.

It is a type mismatch error.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/5/2024 5:39 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/6/24 00:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/5/2024 5:18 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 00:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> If embedded_H simulates its input then we can certainly
>>>> see that this simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>
>>> If H doesn't terminate normally then it doesn't solve the halting
>>> problem.
>>
>> embedded_H does terminate normally.
>
> Then why did you say it didn't?

I never said that ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly
terminate normally. Read my 3 page paper to see all of the
very carefully composed details. This paper has been rewritten
hundreds of times to make it more clear.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/6/24 00:49, olcott wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 5:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 00:30, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2024 5:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/24 23:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>> and Jack cannot answer that question correctly conclusively
>>>>> proves that the same word-for-word question has a different
>>>>> meaning when posed to Jack than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it conclusively proves that Jack cannot answer that question
>>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> Why can't Jack answer the question correctly?
>>
>> Because "yes" is incorrect and "no" is incorrect.
>
> Right. And Yes/No questions that lack correct yes/no
> answers <are> incorrect questions.
>

They are simply questions without correct answers. But the halting
question isn't one of those. Jack can either correctly answer "no" or he
can't (the correct answer is that he can't). D(D) either halts or
doesn't halt.

>>
>>>
>>> When we see the example question: What time is it (yes or no)?
>>> Then it is clear that incorrect questions do exist.
>>>
>>
>> That's just a syntax error.
>
> It is a type mismatch error.
>
Whatever. It's a trivial, boring error.