novaBBS - sci.logic - Re: Some definitions for Olcott

Re: Some definitions for Olcott

<unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=6488&group=sci.logic#6488

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Some definitions for Olcott
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:28:37 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>
References: <unlgdt$2dbn1$2@dont-email.me> <unmosi$2jlr6$1@dont-email.me>
<unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:28:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d41334e5bef8a6bf5cd4032a555b3753";
logging-data="3523866"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193M2Zb3nf+1ii9QJnBsuE3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eC1iBJZK/DYVUaSwsKXKPaKzaeo=
In-Reply-To: <unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:28 UTC

On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>> is wrong.
>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>> wrong.
>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
>> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't valid
>> and you are right back down the crap hole.
>
> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is not
> a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>
>
> Probably the best you can do
>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input any
>> string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>
> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and its
> input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or not)
> WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>

If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.

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

Re: Some definitions for Olcott

<unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=6501&group=sci.logic#6501

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Some definitions for Olcott
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:04:21 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me>
References: <unlgdt$2dbn1$2@dont-email.me> <unmosi$2jlr6$1@dont-email.me>
<unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me> <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="425b24bb86cf60bce21a2e96f4d228c6";
logging-data="3555707"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/i3dZI+sSJ2qlcPbV09dL7"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uzN+7cbxxaqB98KseeN7CRV/d9k=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>

by: immibis - Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04 UTC

On 1/12/24 05:28, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>>> is wrong.
>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>>> wrong.
>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
>>> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't valid
>>> and you are right back down the crap hole.
>>
>> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is
>> not a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>>
>>
>> Probably the best you can do
>>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input any
>>> string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>>
>> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and its
>> input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or not)
>> WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>
> If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
> What time is it (yes or no)?
>
> It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
> do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.
>

You can't even write a program that answers the question, so you can't
input the program to the halt decider. I repeat: ANY VALID PROGRAM.

Re: Some definitions for Olcott

<unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=6524&group=sci.logic#6524

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Some definitions for Olcott
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:50:58 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>
References: <unlgdt$2dbn1$2@dont-email.me> <unmosi$2jlr6$1@dont-email.me>
<unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me> <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>
<unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:50:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d41334e5bef8a6bf5cd4032a555b3753";
logging-data="3697657"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18d9ihmgHI/JSVQOS8a+0J/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MFdlCBEjbnNmO7PUUEK0X5zaKF0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me>

by: olcott - Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:50 UTC

On 1/12/2024 1:04 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 05:28, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
>>>> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't
>>>> valid and you are right back down the crap hole.
>>>
>>> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is
>>> not a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably the best you can do
>>>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input
>>>> any string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>>>
>>> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and
>>> its input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or
>>> not) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>
>> If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>
>> It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
>> do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.
>>
>
> You can't even write a program that answers the question, so you can't
> input the program to the halt decider. I repeat: ANY VALID PROGRAM.

The Cyc project can write a computer program that understands that
question in their CycL language.

It is much easier to write the Liar Paradox in Prolog and see that
Prolog rejects the Liar Paradox as semantically unsound.

Tarski make the mistake of anchoring his whole Undecidability Proof
in the semantically unsound Liar Paradox.

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

Re: Some definitions for Olcott

<unrp92$3h64i$2@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=6532&group=sci.logic#6532

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.hispagatos.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Some definitions for Olcott
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:27:13 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <unrp92$3h64i$2@dont-email.me>
References: <unlgdt$2dbn1$2@dont-email.me> <unmosi$2jlr6$1@dont-email.me>
<unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me> <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>
<unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me> <unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:27:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="792b181453eb673a85e82def06862b1f";
logging-data="3709074"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wFsV14WH/OIMO9xMxAnJy"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VQhjiBb58H3IRhq7+iXAlUJW6Zk=
In-Reply-To: <unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: immibis - Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:27 UTC

On 1/12/24 16:50, olcott wrote:
> On 1/12/2024 1:04 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 05:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
>>>>> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't
>>>>> valid and you are right back down the crap hole.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is
>>>> not a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably the best you can do
>>>>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input
>>>>> any string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>>>>
>>>> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and
>>>> its input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or
>>>> not) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>
>>> It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
>>> do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.
>>>
>>
>> You can't even write a program that answers the question, so you can't
>> input the program to the halt decider. I repeat: ANY VALID PROGRAM.
>
> The Cyc project can write a computer program that understands that
> question in their CycL language.

A program that tells me the current time (yes or no)?

I'd like to see the program.

Re: Some definitions for Olcott

<unrphh$3h37m$7@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=6535&group=sci.logic#6535

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Some definitions for Olcott
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:31:45 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <unrphh$3h37m$7@dont-email.me>
References: <unlgdt$2dbn1$2@dont-email.me> <unmosi$2jlr6$1@dont-email.me>
<unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me> <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>
<unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me> <unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>
<unrp92$3h64i$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:31:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d41334e5bef8a6bf5cd4032a555b3753";
logging-data="3706102"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185H2xekIj1SeI3FjTvCH3i"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bqlIuUq0QmN+P4R/PqZeD1KiFDg=
In-Reply-To: <unrp92$3h64i$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:31 UTC

On 1/12/2024 10:27 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 16:50, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/12/2024 1:04 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/12/24 05:28, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is
>>>>>> fairly weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)"
>>>>>> isn't valid and you are right back down the crap hole.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D
>>>>> is not a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably the best you can do
>>>>>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input
>>>>>> any string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and
>>>>> its input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or
>>>>> not) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>
>>>> It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
>>>> do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't even write a program that answers the question, so you
>>> can't input the program to the halt decider. I repeat: ANY VALID
>>> PROGRAM.
>>
>> The Cyc project can write a computer program that understands that
>> question in their CycL language.
>
> A program that tells me the current time (yes or no)?
>
> I'd like to see the program.

You do understand that it <is> an incorrect question don't you?
It does prove that incorrect question do exist.

It is also clear that the inability to answer incorrect questions
does not place any limit on anyone or anything.

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

Re: Some definitions for Olcott

<unrpo0$3h64i$7@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=6538&group=sci.logic#6538

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Some definitions for Olcott
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:35:12 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <unrpo0$3h64i$7@dont-email.me>
References: <unlgdt$2dbn1$2@dont-email.me> <unmosi$2jlr6$1@dont-email.me>
<unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me> <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>
<unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me> <unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>
<unrp92$3h64i$2@dont-email.me> <unrphh$3h37m$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:35:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="792b181453eb673a85e82def06862b1f";
logging-data="3709074"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7qHaQ+lVSESKRJcRVSy3E"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JBgh4wEJBDg1nBQKwr65Ciy1sBk=
In-Reply-To: <unrphh$3h37m$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: immibis - Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:35 UTC

On 1/12/24 17:31, olcott wrote:
> On 1/12/2024 10:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 16:50, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2024 1:04 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/24 05:28, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is
>>>>>>> fairly weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)"
>>>>>>> isn't valid and you are right back down the crap hole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D
>>>>>> is not a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably the best you can do
>>>>>>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input
>>>>>>> any string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and
>>>>>> its input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input
>>>>>> or not) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct
>>>>> question:
>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>
>>>>> It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
>>>>> do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't even write a program that answers the question, so you
>>>> can't input the program to the halt decider. I repeat: ANY VALID
>>>> PROGRAM.
>>>
>>> The Cyc project can write a computer program that understands that
>>> question in their CycL language.
>>
>> A program that tells me the current time (yes or no)?
>>
>> I'd like to see the program.
>
> You do understand that it <is> an incorrect question don't you?
> It does prove that incorrect question do exist.
>
> It is also clear that the inability to answer incorrect questions
> does not place any limit on anyone or anything.
>

You just told me the Cyc project could write a program that could tell
me the time (yes or no).

Please show me the program.

Re: Some definitions for Olcott

<unsmj0$316nt$16@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=6559&group=sci.logic#6559

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Some definitions for Olcott
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:47:28 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <unsmj0$316nt$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <unlgdt$2dbn1$2@dont-email.me> <unmosi$2jlr6$1@dont-email.me>
<unqefu$3bgkt$1@dont-email.me> <unqf5l$3bh8q$3@dont-email.me>
<unqo9l$3cgbr$3@dont-email.me> <unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:47:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="3185405"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <unrn52$3gqvp$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

by: Richard Damon - Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:47 UTC

On 1/12/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/12/2024 1:04 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 05:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 19:49, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 12:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you are have not defined "valid program", the above is fairly
>>>>> weak. For example, the idiot Olcott might say that "D(D)" isn't
>>>>> valid and you are right back down the crap hole.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine. If Olcott thinks that D is not a valid program, or D is
>>>> not a valid input for program D, he needs to say that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably the best you can do
>>>>> along these lines is say that D - your decider - accepts as input
>>>>> any string D where P(S) is true and P is a decidable predicate.
>>>>
>>>> I repeat: THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY VALID PROGRAM (and
>>>> its input but it doesn't actually matter whether you allow input or
>>>> not) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we apply that same reasoning to this syntactically correct question:
>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>
>>> It becomes much more obvious that incorrect questions
>>> do not limit anyone or anything, they are just wrong.
>>>
>>
>> You can't even write a program that answers the question, so you can't
>> input the program to the halt decider. I repeat: ANY VALID PROGRAM.
>
> The Cyc project can write a computer program that understands that
> question in their CycL language.
>
> It is much easier to write the Liar Paradox in Prolog and see that
> Prolog rejects the Liar Paradox as semantically unsound.
>
> Tarski make the mistake of anchoring his whole Undecidability Proof
> in the semantically unsound Liar Paradox.
>

WHERE?

Exact line?

Your failure to answer is just your admission that you don't actually
understand his proof.

I must have slipped a disk -- my pack hurts!

tech / sci.logic / Re: Some definitions for Olcott

Subject	Author
Re: Some definitions for Olcott	olcott
Re: Some definitions for Olcott	immibis
Re: Some definitions for Olcott	olcott
Re: Some definitions for Olcott	immibis
Re: Some definitions for Olcott	olcott
Re: Some definitions for Olcott	immibis
Re: Some definitions for Olcott	Richard Damon