On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> What is the purpose of this group?
>
> From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
> of people responding to him. However, by responding to him over
> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
> cranks.
>
> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome? Do you
> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
> obvious?
>
> Why not just stop responding to him? Perhaps even post an FAQ
> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him? I plonked the guy
> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>
> - Dan C.
>

Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting

*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340

*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

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

On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>
>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>> cranks.
>>
>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>> obvious?
>>
>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>
>>     - Dan C.
>>
>
> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>
> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>
> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>

no they did not

On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>
>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>> cranks.
>>>
>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>> obvious?
>>>
>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>
>>>     - Dan C.
>>>
>>
>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>
>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>
>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>
>
> no they did not

*Here are the details of how they did*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

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

On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>
>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>> cranks.
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>> obvious?
>>>>
>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>
>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>
>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>
>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>
>>
>> no they did not
>
> *Here are the details of how they did*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>
>
This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical. It
is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because they
can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.

The halting problem is not about specifications, or context-dependent
functions. It is simply about whether a Turing machine/input pair has a
finite configuration sequence.

On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>
>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>
>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>
>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>
>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> no they did not
>>
>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>
>>
> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical. It
> is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because they
> can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>
> The halting problem is not about specifications, or context-dependent
> functions. It is simply about whether a Turing machine/input pair has a
> finite configuration sequence.

*In other words you see how these professors agree with me*

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

On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>
>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>
>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no they did not
>>>
>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>
>>>
>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical. It
>> is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because they
>> can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>>
>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or context-dependent
>> functions. It is simply about whether a Turing machine/input pair has
>> a finite configuration sequence.
>
> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>
>
They don't agree with you.

On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no they did not
>>>>
>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
>>> It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because
>>> they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>>>
>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or context-dependent
>>> functions. It is simply about whether a Turing machine/input pair has
>>> a finite configuration sequence.
>>
>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>
>>
> They don't agree with you.

Any idea can be a mere naysayer.

Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
problem cannot be solved only because there is something
wrong with it.

The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)

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

On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>
>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>>> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
>>>> It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because
>>>> they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>
>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>
>>>
>> They don't agree with you.
>
> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>
> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
> wrong with it.
>
>    The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
>    halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
>    a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
>    program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
>    and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
>    of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>
>

If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then the
halting problem is proven unsolvable.

On 2/12/2024 1:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>>>> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
>>>>> It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three
>>>>> because they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>>
>>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They don't agree with you.
>>
>> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>>
>> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
>> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
>> wrong with it.
>>
>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
>>     halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
>>     a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
>>     program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
>>     and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
>>     of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>
>>
>
> If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then the
> halting problem is proven unsolvable.

It is also equally impossible to determine whether
"this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
math and computer science don't understand that this
impossibility does not limit math or computer science.

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

On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 1:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are
>>>>>> about meanings of English words, but the halting problem is
>>>>>> mathematical. It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one
>>>>>> make three because they can go into a house, reproduce, and come
>>>>>> out as three.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>>>
>>>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They don't agree with you.
>>>
>>> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>>>
>>> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
>>> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
>>> wrong with it.
>>>
>>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
>>>     halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
>>>     a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
>>>     program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
>>>     and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
>>>     of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then
>> the halting problem is proven unsolvable.
>
>
> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
> math and computer science don't understand that this
> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>

"This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.

On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 1:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 19:43, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are
>>>>>>> about meanings of English words, but the halting problem is
>>>>>>> mathematical. It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one
>>>>>>> make three because they can go into a house, reproduce, and come
>>>>>>> out as three.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They don't agree with you.
>>>>
>>>> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>>>>
>>>> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
>>>> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
>>>> wrong with it.
>>>>
>>>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
>>>>     halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
>>>>     a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
>>>>     program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
>>>>     and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
>>>>     of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it's impossible for a program to solve the halting problem, then
>>> the halting problem is proven unsolvable.
>>
>>
>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>
>
> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.

"this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
incorrect notion of undecidability.

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

On 12/02/24 22:47, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>>
>>
>> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
>> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.
>
> "this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
> incorrect notion of undecidability.
>
"this sentence is not true" is not math.

On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 22:47, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>>>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>>>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>>>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
>>> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.
>>
>> "this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
>> incorrect notion of undecidability.
>>
> "this sentence is not true" is not math.

Yet this formalized version <is> the basis of Tarski's proof.

(see below for context).
*giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds*

The proof of Tarski's undefinability theorem in this form is again
by reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that an L-formula True(n)

as above existed, i.e., if A is a sentence of arithmetic, then
True(g(A)) holds in N if and only if A holds in N. Hence for all

A, the formula True(g(A)) ⟺ A holds in N. But the diagonal
lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence, by

giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds
in N. This is a contradiction QED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem

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

On 2/12/24 1:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 12:29 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 05:10, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 9:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 02:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:22 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of this group?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  From what I can tell, it's all this olcott person, who by any
>>>>>>>> reasonable indication is a crank, posting nonsense, and a bunch
>>>>>>>> of people responding to him.  However, by responding to him over
>>>>>>>> and over again (and largely saying the same thing ad nauseum),
>>>>>>>> they themselves are also starting to appear more and more like
>>>>>>>> cranks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Honestly, do any of you expect a different outcome?  Do you
>>>>>>>> expect olcott to admit that he's wrong, even though it's so
>>>>>>>> obvious?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just stop responding to him?  Perhaps even post an FAQ
>>>>>>>> stating that he's a crank and to ignore him?  I plonked the guy
>>>>>>>> ages ago, but still get all the backscatter of people responding
>>>>>>>> to him over and over saying the same thing again and again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors independently derived
>>>>>>> one of my two proofs, thus proving that I am not a crank.
>>>>>>> It is the proof that they agree with that I have been presenting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no they did not
>>>>>
>>>>> *Here are the details of how they did*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This has nothing to do with the halting problem since you are about
>>>> meanings of English words, but the halting problem is mathematical.
>>>> It is like proving that 1+1=3 because one and one make three because
>>>> they can go into a house, reproduce, and come out as three.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is not about specifications, or
>>>> context-dependent functions. It is simply about whether a Turing
>>>> machine/input pair has a finite configuration sequence.
>>>
>>> *In other words you see how these professors agree with me*
>>>
>>>
>> They don't agree with you.
>
> Any idea can be a mere naysayer.
>
> Their quoted text in my paper does agree that the halting
> problem cannot be solved only because there is something
> wrong with it.
>
>    The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
>    halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
>    a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
>    program at all. It is not even a conceptual object,
>    and this is due to inconsistencies in the specification
>    of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
>
>

But he is wrong, because S HAS been completely specified.

On 13/02/24 02:46, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 22:47, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 21:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also equally impossible to determine whether
>>>>> "this sentence is not true" is true or false and both
>>>>> math and computer science don't understand that this
>>>>> impossibility does not limit math or computer science.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "This sentence is not true" is not a Turing machine/input pair. All
>>>> Turing machine/input pairs have finite or infinite execution sequences.
>>>
>>> "this sentence is not true" is the math side of the
>>> incorrect notion of undecidability.
>>>
>> "this sentence is not true" is not math.
>
> Yet this formalized version <is> the basis of Tarski's proof.

Tarski proved it cannot be formalized.