On 2/11/2024 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>>
>>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>
>> LLMs no longer use predefined rules, they can update their rules
>> several times during the same dialogue.
>>
>
> And that "update" is programmed in, so is according to its "fixed
> pre-defined rules".
>

Not at all, not in the least little bit. The programmers
only provide a tiny seed of the basis for LLM to dynamically
learn everything that they know on their own. Because they are
stochastic they are not deterministic. You are simply wrong.

>
> You are just showing your Natural Stupidity about how Artificial
> Intelligence actually works.

It is libelous to call your own ignorance my stupidity.

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

On 2/11/2024 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/10/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>>
>>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>>> their limits.
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>> Description?
>> Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox question.
>> Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???
>>
>>
>>
>
> Nope, nothing in that Computation says "Your own".

I repeat myself because your ADD makes it too difficult for
you to pay enough attention. A better way would be for you
read and re-read what I say again and again until you fully
understand what I said before spouting off any rebuttal.

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

> Ĥ happened to be
> given its own description, but nothing tells it that it is its own
> description.
>

It is an easily verified fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ isomorphic to the self-referential
liar paradox. The Liar Paradox contradicts both true and false
and Ĥ contradicts both yes and no.

That the Liar Paradox does not know that it is self-referential
(it is merely a text string that knows nothing) does not change
the fact that it is self-referential.

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

On 2/11/2024 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>>
>>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>>> their limits.
>>
>> That is a fake rebuttal that did not point out a single mistake.
>>
>
> That a non-computation given a description of a non-conputation does say
> anything about computations.
>
> You hae admitted that your input isn't actually a description of a
> computation, but just the template for one.
>

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
*It is the Linz template no my template*

The second ⊢* means every sequence of states of the
infinite set of all sequences of states.

One of these could ignore its input and simply play
tic-tac-toe with itself before transitioning to Ĥ.qy
or Ĥ.qn.

> You have admitted that you "decider" isn't a particular machine in your
> analysys but a "set" of them.
>

I am using the categorically exhaustive reasoning to analyze the
properties of each element of an infinite set in finite time.

The embedded_H of every Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer only
because Ĥ was intentionally defined to be self-contradictory.

> Thus, you have admitted that you are just LYING when you say you are
> doing exactly like the proof does.
>

That is libelous. I am not doing exactly what the proof does. I
am analyzing the actual original proof and coming to a different
conclusion on the basis that the proof never notices that the inability
to correctly answer incorrect questions does not limit anyone or
anything.

> You have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand what a
> computation actually is, even as far as saying your "H" actually does
> things that computations are not allowed to do.
>

When we define embedded_H as a pair of machines that ignore their
input and simply transition to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn embedded_H still gets
the wrong answer *only because* the Ĥ template was intentionally
defined to contradict both of these values.

*Try and show that Ĥ does nothing to contradict Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn*
(a) *Try and show that the loop appended to Ĥ.qy does not exist*
(b) *Try and show that a transition to Ĥ.qn does not halt*

> Thus, you are just admitting to your utter stupidity.
>

How did you do on the Mensa test? I scored in the top 3%

> YOU are the one trying to make a rebuttal (to the halting problem
> proof), but don't seem to understand what you need to do to even attempt
> it,
>
> You are just too stupid,

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

On 11/02/24 04:43, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>
>> There's no such thing as a self-contradictory input. Every formula is
>> either true or false in each model. Each Turing machine/input pair's
>> configuration sequence is either finite or infinite.
>
> In other words you don't know as much as Richard.
> The Liar Paradox is neither true or false.
>
The Liar Paradox is not a formula.
The Liar Paradox is not a Turing machine.
There is no Liar Paradox in first-order logic.
There is no Liar Paradox in Turing machines.

On 11/02/24 04:45, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>
>>
>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>
>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>
>>
>
> LLMs can reconfigure themselves on the fly redefining
> their own rules within a single dialogue.
>

This is incorrect. I suggest you study them.

On 11/02/24 04:46, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>
>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>> their limits.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox question.
> Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???
>

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it stop being nonsense. Mike
Terry was right about you.

On 11/02/24 06:07, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>
>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>> their limits.
>
> That is a fake rebuttal that did not point out a single mistake.
>

All of your rebuttals were fake rebuttals that did not point out a
single mistake.

On 2/11/24 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>>>
>>>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> LLMs can reconfigure themselves on the fly redefining
>>> their own rules within a single dialogue.
>>>
>>
>> But only in accordance to its existing programming, or your system
>> isn't a Computation.
>>
>
> The point is that they can reprogram themselves on the fly using modern
> machine learning. LLMs learn on their own.
>

But they are still a DETERMINISTIC algorithm that a given program will
always give the same answer to the same input.

You just need to decide which way you want to model it. Is the
"learning" part of the programming and the "learned model" thus also
part of the program (at which point the model update is generating a NEW
program) or is the learning all part of the input.

There is also a middle ground, where the learning phase generates a
chunk of data take as the starting point for later work.

On 2/11/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>>>
>>>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>>
>>> LLMs no longer use predefined rules, they can update their rules
>>> several times during the same dialogue.
>>>
>>
>> And that "update" is programmed in, so is according to its "fixed
>> pre-defined rules".
>>
>
> Not at all, not in the least little bit. The programmers
> only provide a tiny seed of the basis for LLM to dynamically
> learn everything that they know on their own. Because they are
> stochastic they are not deterministic. You are simply wrong.

IF they are TRUELY Random, then they are not "Computations" and outside
of the theory, but most are not.

They may use "Pseudo Random Numbers" as part of the process, but then
the RNG and the seed are just part of the algorithm/data used. (TRNG is
just too expensive, and not needed for training)

You obviously have never actually worked with a Neural Network and how
you actually program it to learn.

You don't just throw your corpus of information at the network and just
accept what it gets out of it, at least not if you want a good result.

That is why the process is called "Training", and not just "learning",
because the programmer takes an active part in the processes.

And is also why the trained model is normally considered part of the
"program" and not just "data".

>
>>
>> You are just showing your Natural Stupidity about how Artificial
>> Intelligence actually works.
>
> It is libelous to call your own ignorance my stupidity.
>

Except that your stupidity has been PROVEN by your own words, and truth
is an absolute defense against libel.

Your insinuation that I don't know something, based on your not
understand of what I say, is something different, and just further
proves your stupidity.

Have you every actually taught an AI system to do something (not just
used an existing model and teach it some fact)?

My guess is your knowledge of how AI actually works is on par with your
knowledge of how Turing Machines works, just enough to get you into trouble.

On 2/11/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>>>> their limits.
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine
>>> Description?
>>> Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox
>>> question.
>>> Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, nothing in that Computation says "Your own".
>
> I repeat myself because your ADD makes it too difficult for
> you to pay enough attention. A better way would be for you
> read and re-read what I say again and again until you fully
> understand what I said before spouting off any rebuttal.

No, you repeat yourself as you need to convince yourself that your lies
are true.

>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

No Ĥ applied to (Ĥ) asks Ĥ to process its input according to its
programming.

Ĥ is NOT a "Decider" so isn't asked any specific question to answer.

H is a Decider, including the copy of H inside Ĥ, and THAT is being
asked if the machine described by the input will Halt.

The fact that the input represents a machine that it is part of does NOT
change the question it is being asked.

>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

(Done throwing your two-year olds fit?)

>
>> Ĥ happened to be given its own description, but nothing tells it that
>> it is its own description.
>>
>
> It is an easily verified fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

How is that?

You "say" that it is "Easily Verified", but since the specification for
Ĥ don't say Ĥ is being asked anything, that can't actually be done.

Is this just another of your self-created claims with no backing, or are
you going to try to show your reasoning.

Remember, ASKING is about requirements, and expectations.

The thing that has specifications and requirements is H, not Ĥ.

Ĥ is just an input that H needs to try to correctly answer about (but
always fails).

Also (Ĥ) doesn't mean "yourself" it means the description of the machine Ĥ

>
> This makes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ isomorphic to the self-referential
> liar paradox. The Liar Paradox contradicts both true and false
> and Ĥ contradicts both yes and no.

Nope, since your premise isn't true, it doesn't imply anything.

You claim also shows you are just ignorant of the meaning of the word
"self-referntial", since there is no "Reference" in the data (just being
given a copy of itself) and the thing actually being contradicted isn't
"itself" but the seperate computation H that has been incorporated into Ĥ.

Ĥ and H are different machines, so not a "self" relationship

>
> That the Liar Paradox does not know that it is self-referential
> (it is merely a text string that knows nothing) does not change
> the fact that it is self-referential.
>
>

No, the semantics of the statement are referential. You can not build
the Liar Paradox in a language which doesn't have some way to
"Reference" a statement.

Note, the "Paradox" isn't in the string, but the semantics.

Note, Turing Machines have no mechanism to "Reference" something, and
(Ĥ) doesn't "reference" the machine Ĥ, it fully describes it. (and you
can't tell which instance of that machine it is describing).

On 2/11/24 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When a machine contradicts every answer that this same machine
>>>>> provides this is a ruse to try to show that computation is limited.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand what a computation IS, so you don't understand
>>>> their limits.
>>>
>>> That is a fake rebuttal that did not point out a single mistake.
>>>
>>
>> That a non-computation given a description of a non-conputation does
>> say anything about computations.
>>
>> You hae admitted that your input isn't actually a description of a
>> computation, but just the template for one.
>>
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> *It is the Linz template no my template*

Nope, Linz doesn't change the name of H to embedded_H.

>
> The second ⊢* means every sequence of states of the
> infinite set of all sequences of states.

Nope, care to try to point where he says that? (or do you just admit to
another lie).

the ⊢* represents that specific sequence of steps (not specified in the
proof) that this particular H that is being used will do.

>
> One of these could ignore its input and simply play
> tic-tac-toe with itself before transitioning to Ĥ.qy
> or Ĥ.qn.

If that is what H does, then that would be what it specifies, but not if
that isn't what H does.

>
>> You have admitted that you "decider" isn't a particular machine in
>> your analysys but a "set" of them.
>>
>
> I am using the categorically exhaustive reasoning to analyze the
> properties of each element of an infinite set in finite time.

But doing it WRONG.

>
> The embedded_H of every Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer only
> because Ĥ was intentionally defined to be self-contradictory.

So? Wrong answers are wrong answers.

You also are proving you don't know what words mean.

Ĥ isn't "Self-Contradictory", but H-contradictory, and H isn't Ĥ so you
clearly don't know what the word "self" means.

>
>
>> Thus, you have admitted that you are just LYING when you say you are
>> doing exactly like the proof does.
>>
>
> That is libelous. I am not doing exactly what the proof does. I
> am analyzing the actual original proof and coming to a different
> conclusion on the basis that the proof never notices that the inability
> to correctly answer incorrect questions does not limit anyone or
> anything.

No, You HAVE stated that your Ĥ / D was built exactly per the Linz proof.

Your don't even know what a correct question is, so you clearly haven't
done what you claim.

You are just proving your utter stupidity, and that you are a persistant
pathological liar as you show you have no understand of what truth
actually is.

>
>> You have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand what a
>> computation actually is, even as far as saying your "H" actually does
>> things that computations are not allowed to do.
>>
>
> When we define embedded_H as a pair of machines that ignore their
> input and simply transition to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn embedded_H still gets
> the wrong answer *only because* the Ĥ template was intentionally
> defined to contradict both of these values.

But a wrong answer is a wrong answer no matter what the reason.

There is a right answer to the question of the behavior of Ĥ (Ĥ), and H
/ embedded_H just doesn't give it, so it is wrong.

Both versions, which are given DIFFERENT inputs, so the fact that the
right answer is different isn't a surprise.

>
> *Try and show that Ĥ does nothing to contradict Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn*
> (a) *Try and show that the loop appended to Ĥ.qy does not exist*
> (b) *Try and show that a transition to Ĥ.qn does not halt*

Why should I? Where is it defined that Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn need to have any
specific behavior except what Ĥ was programmed to do.

H.qy and H.qn, for H to be correct, need to correctly be chosen based on
the behavior of the computation described by the input.

>
>> Thus, you are just admitting to your utter stupidity.
>>
>
> How did you do on the Mensa test? I scored in the top 3%

Never took it, didn't see the need to try to mingle with that sort of
people. Would have been just a waste of time and money.

Was that score before or after you claimed to be God?

>
>> YOU are the one trying to make a rebuttal (to the halting problem
>> proof), but don't seem to understand what you need to do to even
>> attempt it,
>>
>> You are just too stupid,
>

Nope. You are.

YOU'RE the one that can't define the words you are using, or actually
show a proof of your claims.

On 2/11/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>
>>>> Or none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text string
>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>>> wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>
>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>> or (B) halts in some other state
>> or (C) does not halt.
>>
>
> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.

Your problem is you don't seem to know what any of those terms mean.

>
> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
> true or false: "this sentence is not true".

Nope, you clearly don't understand his proof.

This is likely because you just don't understand what "Formal Logic"
actually means.

The fact that you think "English" could be a "Formal Logic System" is
just proof of that.

>
> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.

Nope. Shows your stupidity.

>
> Gödel makes this same mistake.
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
>

Right, and you don't understand what he meant by that either, proving
your incompetence.

On 11/02/24 16:32, olcott wrote:
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> *It is the Linz template no my template*

Proof by contradiction means that if an assumption causes a
contradiction, the assumption is false. Therefore, it's false that a
halt decider exists.

You keep copy-pasting this notation, but it's non-standard notation,
perhaps used only by Linz, so you'd do well to explain what it actually
means. Notation is just a way to abbreviate - to write less. If you
can't explain it in precise English then you don't really understand it.

> One of these could ignore its input and simply play
> tic-tac-toe with itself before transitioning to Ĥ.qy
> or Ĥ.qn.

That's right. It doesn't matter how H works inside. All that matters is:
it's wrong for at least one input.

H that plays tic-tac-toe for itself will be wrong for many inputs,
therefore not a halt decider.

>
>> You have admitted that you "decider" isn't a particular machine in
>> your analysys but a "set" of them.
>>
>
> I am using the categorically exhaustive reasoning to analyze the
> properties of each element of an infinite set in finite time.

Example of categorically exhaustive reasoning to analyze the properties
of an infinite set:
For each decider H:
Either it's type Hss (doesn't halt), type Han (aborts and returns 0)
or type Hah (aborts and returns 1).
If it's type Hss, it's not a halt decider because halt deciders halt.
If it's type Hah, it's not a halt decider because it gives the wrong
answer when the input is Dah.
If it's type Han, it's not a halt decider because it gives the wrong
answer when the input is Dan.
No matter the category, H isn't a halt decider.
For each program it is proven that program isn't a halt decider.
Therefore no programs are halt deciders.

> That is libelous. I am not doing exactly what the proof does. I
> am analyzing the actual original proof and coming to a different
> conclusion on the basis that the proof never notices that the inability
> to correctly answer incorrect questions does not limit anyone or
> anything.

The inability to correctly answer a question proves the question cannot
be correctly answered.

The fact that the question cannot be correctly the answered proves the
answer to "Can this question be correctly answered?" is "no".

"Please tell me the time (yes or no)?" -> no answer.
"Can you tell me what the time is (yes or no)?" -> "no, I cannot"
(correct answer)

> How did you do on the Mensa test? I scored in the top 3%

Reverse ad hominem.

On 11/02/24 15:53, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>
>>>> Or none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text string
>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>>> wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>
>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>> or (B) halts in some other state
>> or (C) does not halt.
>>
>
> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.

A question is undecidable if every Turing machine isn't a decider for
it. This is consistent and coherent.

On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>
>>>> Or none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text string
>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>>> wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>
>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>> or (B) halts in some other state
>> or (C) does not halt.
>>
>
> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>
> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>
> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>
> Gödel makes this same mistake.
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
>

Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.

Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
given suitable others.

It's kind of the entire point for
"conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.

.... For a universe or world of facts.

About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
at all - only fragments and extensions.

.... According to logical expansion of comprehension.

Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.

Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.

On 2/11/2024 1:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>> string
>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>
>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>
>>
>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>>
>> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
>> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
>> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
>> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>>
>> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
>> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>>
>> Gödel makes this same mistake.
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>>
>
> Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
> or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.
>
> Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
> given suitable others.
>

Undecidable in the same way that no one and nothing can
correctly determine the square-root of an actual banana.

Tarski did not understand that the domain of a truth predicate
is truth-bearers and that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???

> It's kind of the entire point for
> "conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
> to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.
>
> ... For a universe or world of facts.
>
> About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
> arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
> that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
> at all - only fragments and extensions.
>
> ... According to logical expansion of comprehension.
>
>
> Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
> it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
> and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.
>
>
> Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.
>
>

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

On 02/11/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 1:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that
>>>>> can
>>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>>> string
>>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>>>
>>> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
>>> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
>>> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
>>> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>>>
>>> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
>>> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>>>
>>> Gödel makes this same mistake.
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
>> or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.
>>
>> Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
>> given suitable others.
>>
>
> Undecidable in the same way that no one and nothing can
> correctly determine the square-root of an actual banana.
>
> Tarski did not understand that the domain of a truth predicate
> is truth-bearers and that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
>
>
>> It's kind of the entire point for
>> "conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
>> to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.
>>
>> ... For a universe or world of facts.
>>
>> About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
>> arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
>> that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
>> at all - only fragments and extensions.
>>
>> ... According to logical expansion of comprehension.
>>
>>
>> Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
>> it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
>> and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.
>>
>>
>> Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.
>>
>>
>

Well "What time is it?" is just a modal proposition,
in the modality that's also temporality.

The contingent of course is exactly where something like
natural language already has what's called "present" and
"future" and conditionals and with regards to capabilities.

Should-a Could-a Would-a
Since Until
Yet

What is the answer to what time it is is contingent
the instant, the moment, the occurrence, the system,
the epoch, and all these kinds of things, and it varies
for living, thinking beings with one life and one time,
and, a focus of a locus of facts set to be struck
by a superscalar at midnight or zero hour.

I.e., Man, the Animal, has a temporal modality.

Some cultures believe in a cycle of rebirth,
but it's still one life at a time.

See also the thread on sci.logic "What is a question word?".
It's sort of interrogative.

So, modality isn't a property like undecidability attached
necessarily to all propositions, but it gets connected,
because the modalities relate their terms,
then for them to relate with relevance.

No problems in computer science per se are really
unbounded anyways, though we know algorithmics and
the complexity of algorithms and the order of the
size of inputs and intermeidates, so, those are
matters of the computability theory then as for
what results the deductively determined properties
of the objects of the mathematics, _then_ to
formalize those for making statements in those terms.

So anyways you can claim a corpus is a modality,
but there's free expansion of comprension in any
other modality, so, there's an idea to respect
at least one good one called "time".

On 2/11/2024 1:58 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/11/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 1:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>>>> string
>>>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not
>>>>>> be a
>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>>>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>>>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>
>>>> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
>>>> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
>>>> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
>>>> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>>>>
>>>> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
>>>> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>>>>
>>>> Gödel makes this same mistake.
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
>>> or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.
>>>
>>> Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
>>> given suitable others.
>>>
>>
>> Undecidable in the same way that no one and nothing can
>> correctly determine the square-root of an actual banana.
>>
>> Tarski did not understand that the domain of a truth predicate
>> is truth-bearers and that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
>>
>>
>>> It's kind of the entire point for
>>> "conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
>>> to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.
>>>
>>> ... For a universe or world of facts.
>>>
>>> About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
>>> arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
>>> that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
>>> at all - only fragments and extensions.
>>>
>>> ... According to logical expansion of comprehension.
>>>
>>>
>>> Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
>>> it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
>>> and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Well "What time is it?" is just a modal proposition,
> in the modality that's also temporality.
>
> The contingent of course is exactly where something like
> natural language already has what's called "present" and
> "future" and conditionals and with regards to capabilities.

On 2/11/2024 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
*You didn't pay attention to the type mismatch error*

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

On 2/11/2024 1:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>> string
>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>
>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>
>>
>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>>
>> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
>> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
>> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
>> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>>
>> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
>> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>>
>> Gödel makes this same mistake.
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>>
>
> Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
> or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.
>
> Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
> given suitable others.
>

What time is it (yes or no) ?
Is an incorrect question that must be rejected as such
thus does not prove that a formal system is incomplete.

> It's kind of the entire point for
> "conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
> to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.
>
> ... For a universe or world of facts.
>
> About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
> arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
> that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
> at all - only fragments and extensions.
>
> ... According to logical expansion of comprehension.
>
>
> Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
> it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
> and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.
>
>
> Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.
>
>

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

On 02/11/2024 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 1:58 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 02/11/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 1:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not
>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>>>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>>>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>>>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>>>>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>>>>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
>>>>> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
>>>>> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
>>>>> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
>>>>> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gödel makes this same mistake.
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar
>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
>>>> or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.
>>>>
>>>> Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
>>>> given suitable others.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Undecidable in the same way that no one and nothing can
>>> correctly determine the square-root of an actual banana.
>>>
>>> Tarski did not understand that the domain of a truth predicate
>>> is truth-bearers and that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's kind of the entire point for
>>>> "conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
>>>> to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.
>>>>
>>>> ... For a universe or world of facts.
>>>>
>>>> About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
>>>> arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
>>>> that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
>>>> at all - only fragments and extensions.
>>>>
>>>> ... According to logical expansion of comprehension.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
>>>> it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
>>>> and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well "What time is it?" is just a modal proposition,
>> in the modality that's also temporality.
>>
>> The contingent of course is exactly where something like
>> natural language already has what's called "present" and
>> "future" and conditionals and with regards to capabilities.
>
> On 2/11/2024 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
> *You didn't pay attention to the type mismatch error*
>

That's because it's doesn't have one until there's a "type match".

It's called "relevance" where terms share common definition at all,
"intensionally" as strongly in the theory its elements,
and "extensionally" as under relations of equivalence
or under "not-inequivalence",m similarity and difference simply.

"What time is it?" is _contingent_ its _evaluation context_.

It was about a quarter past noon in Pacific time zone,
Earth terrestrial.

Of course date and time terms and chronology has its
own sort of ontology, and it's related to a strong sort
of teleology, called the passage of time, in space and time.

This "classical quasi-modal logic with EFQ+MI (ex falso
quodlibet and material implication)" has resulted a lurch.

I suggest to reject EFQ+MI and get into relevance logic
and a logic with a real modality and temporality.

Yet, I'm a "conscientious formalist" as for being a
"strong mathematical platonist" and "strong logical positivist".

"Yet": ... "better than But".

(... that that that that ....)

Nobody needs EFQ+MI to do logic properly,
say constructivists.

On 2/11/2024 2:22 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/11/2024 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 1:58 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 1:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>>>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not
>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>>>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>>>>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>>>>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>>>>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>>>>>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>>>>>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
>>>>>> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
>>>>>> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
>>>>>> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
>>>>>> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gödel makes this same mistake.
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
>>>>> or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.
>>>>>
>>>>> Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
>>>>> given suitable others.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Undecidable in the same way that no one and nothing can
>>>> correctly determine the square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>
>>>> Tarski did not understand that the domain of a truth predicate
>>>> is truth-bearers and that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's kind of the entire point for
>>>>> "conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
>>>>> to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... For a universe or world of facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
>>>>> arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
>>>>> that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
>>>>> at all - only fragments and extensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... According to logical expansion of comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
>>>>> it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
>>>>> and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well "What time is it?" is just a modal proposition,
>>> in the modality that's also temporality.
>>>
>>> The contingent of course is exactly where something like
>>> natural language already has what's called "present" and
>>> "future" and conditionals and with regards to capabilities.
>>
>> On 2/11/2024 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
>> *You didn't pay attention to the type mismatch error*
>>
>
> That's because it's doesn't have one until there's a "type match".
>
> It's called "relevance" where terms share common definition at all,
> "intensionally" as strongly in the theory its elements,
> and "extensionally" as under relations of equivalence
> or under "not-inequivalence",m similarity and difference simply.
>
> "What time is it?" is _contingent_ its _evaluation context_.
>

As soon as its solution set is stipulated to be a type mismatch
then it becomes an incorrect question that does not place any
limit on anyone or anything.

Undecidability is supposed to show the limits of computation.
When undecidability is understood to have its entire basis in
incorrect questions then it can be understood to not limit
anyone or anything.

What time is it (yes or no)? is proven to be incoherent.

> It was about a quarter past noon in Pacific time zone,
> Earth terrestrial.
>
> Of course date and time terms and chronology has its
> own sort of ontology, and it's related to a strong sort
> of teleology, called the passage of time, in space and time.
>
> This "classical quasi-modal logic with EFQ+MI (ex falso
> quodlibet and material implication)" has resulted a lurch.
>
> I suggest to reject EFQ+MI and get into relevance logic
> and a logic with a real modality and temporality.
>
> Yet, I'm a "conscientious formalist" as for being a
> "strong mathematical platonist" and "strong logical positivist".
>
>
> "Yet": ... "better than But".
>
>
> (... that that that that ....)
>
>
>
> Nobody needs EFQ+MI to do logic properly,
> say constructivists.
>
>

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

On 2/11/2024 2:22 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/11/2024 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 1:58 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 1:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 02/11/2024 06:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>>>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not
>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>>>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>>>>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>>>>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>>>>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>>>>>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>>>>>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski's whole Undecidability proof concludes that a correct and
>>>>>> consistent truth predicate cannot exist only because such a
>>>>>> predicate cannot correctly determine whether this sentence is
>>>>>> true or false: "this sentence is not true".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is like saying that math is incomplete because math cannot
>>>>>> correctly determine the square root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gödel makes this same mistake.
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that's wrong, any case of "not enough information"
>>>>> or "contradictory information" is formally undecide-able.
>>>>>
>>>>> Undecideability is a property of any proposition,
>>>>> given suitable others.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Undecidable in the same way that no one and nothing can
>>>> correctly determine the square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>
>>>> Tarski did not understand that the domain of a truth predicate
>>>> is truth-bearers and that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer.
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's kind of the entire point for
>>>>> "conscientious, comprehensive, constructivism"
>>>>> to arrive at what is and what isn't decided.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... For a universe or world of facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> About the undecideability or rather the incompleteness of
>>>>> arithmetic with respect to Goedel, you should find out
>>>>> that there isn't necessarily a "standard" model of integers
>>>>> at all - only fragments and extensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... According to logical expansion of comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Spelled either way, undecideability or undecidability,
>>>>> it's so for any abstract proposition in vacuum,
>>>>> and only relevance logic indicates its proper negation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter and Dick here either are sort of out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well "What time is it?" is just a modal proposition,
>>> in the modality that's also temporality.
>>>
>>> The contingent of course is exactly where something like
>>> natural language already has what's called "present" and
>>> "future" and conditionals and with regards to capabilities.
>>
>> On 2/11/2024 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
>> *You didn't pay attention to the type mismatch error*
>>
>
> That's because it's doesn't have one until there's a "type match".
>

What is square root of an actual banana in dollars and cents?
To call this "undecidable" is a deceptive use of the term.
It is not that you cannot make up your mind.
It is that a correct answer cannot possibly exist.
Whenever a correct answer cannot possibly exist THE QUESTION IS WRONG.

> It's called "relevance" where terms share common definition at all,
> "intensionally" as strongly in the theory its elements,
> and "extensionally" as under relations of equivalence
> or under "not-inequivalence",m similarity and difference simply.
>
> "What time is it?" is _contingent_ its _evaluation context_.
>
> It was about a quarter past noon in Pacific time zone,
> Earth terrestrial.
>
> Of course date and time terms and chronology has its
> own sort of ontology, and it's related to a strong sort
> of teleology, called the passage of time, in space and time.
>
> This "classical quasi-modal logic with EFQ+MI (ex falso
> quodlibet and material implication)" has resulted a lurch.
>
> I suggest to reject EFQ+MI and get into relevance logic
> and a logic with a real modality and temporality.
>
> Yet, I'm a "conscientious formalist" as for being a
> "strong mathematical platonist" and "strong logical positivist".
>
>
> "Yet": ... "better than But".
>
>
> (... that that that that ....)
>
>
>
> Nobody needs EFQ+MI to do logic properly,
> say constructivists.
>
>

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

On 11/02/24 21:12, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" ???
> *You didn't pay attention to the type mismatch error*
>

Is this sentence true or false: "What potato is the sky?" ???

Since this sentence isn't true or false, it proves that nobody knows
what the sky is.

On 2024-02-11 14:57:55 +0000, olcott said:

> On 2/11/2024 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mechanical and organic thinkers are either coherent or incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mechanical things" don't "think" in the normal sense it us used.
>>>>
>>>> They COMPUTE, based on fixed pre-defined rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> LLMs can reconfigure themselves on the fly redefining
>>> their own rules within a single dialogue.
>>>
>>
>> But only in accordance to its existing programming, or your system
>> isn't a Computation.
>>
>
> The point is that they can reprogram themselves on the fly using modern
> machine learning. LLMs learn on their own.

They can only learn what they are programmed to learn.

--
Mikko

On 2/12/2024 5:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-11 14:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/11/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-10 14:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-09 21:57:55 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/02/24 22:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Then Linz notices that both answers that Ĥ provides are the wrong
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ cannot provide both answers. It only provides one answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H could be encoded with every detail all of knowledge that can
>>>> be expressed using language. This means that embedded_H is not
>>>> restricted by typical conventions. embedded_H could output a text
>>>> string
>>>> swearing at you in English for trying to trick it. This would not be a
>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true")
>>>> would be required to do this same sort of thing.
>>>
>>> None of that matters. It only matters whether embedded_H
>>> (A) halts in the state Qn
>>> or (B) halts in some other state
>>> or (C) does not halt.
>>>
>>
>> The whole notion of undecidability in math and computer science is
>> inconsistent and incoherent. Self-contradictory input cannot be
>> used for an undecidability proof it must be rejected as invalid.
>
> In computer science the concepts of decidability and undecidability
> are well defined, coherent and consistent:
>

It may seem that way to everyone that does not understand
truthmaker maximalism.

*Truthmaker Maximalism defended*
https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD

> A set of finite strings (often called a language) is decidable if
> some Turing machine halts in an accepting state when given a finite
> string that is in the set and halts in another state when given any
> other finite string. All other sets of finite strings are called
> undecidable.
>

....14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

The incoherence of (math or computer science) undecidability is that it
does not reject self-contradictory expressions.

Tarski did not even understand that the Liar Paradox is not
in the domain of any truth predicate.

> The question whether a set of finite strings is decidable always
> has an answer even if we don't know that answer for every such set.

*It seems like that until you realize that*

q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // YES for M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts
q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // NO for M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asking Ĥ:
Do you halt on your own machine description?

Then we see that both answers of YES and NO are the wrong answer for
this question.

You are not responding with reasoning you are responding with your own
indoctrination.

> Not knowing the answer is just ignorance and does not affect the facts.
>

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