On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>
>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>
>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>
>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>
>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>
> Selective memory?
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>
> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.

I simplify that down to this.

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

The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
these decision problems decidable.

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > >
> > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
> > >
> > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> >
> > Selective memory?
> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> >
> > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>
> I simplify that down to this.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>
> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> these decision problems decidable.
>

It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an
arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever....

This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')

If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > >
> > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
> > >
> > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> >
> > Selective memory?
> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> >
> > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>
> I simplify that down to this.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>
> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> these decision problems decidable.
>

It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an
arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever....

This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')

If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > >
> > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
> > >
> > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> >
> > Selective memory?
> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> >
> > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>
> I simplify that down to this.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>
> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> these decision problems decidable.
>

It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an
arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever....

This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')

If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
problem is about, right? You never hit the basic target that every one can see, but POOP.

On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>
>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>
>>> Selective memory?
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>
>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>
>> I simplify that down to this.
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>> these decision problems decidable.
>>
>
> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an
> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
> forever....
>
> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>
> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>
>

If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
> > > > >
> > > > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> > > >
> > > > Selective memory?
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> > > >
> > > > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
> > >
> > > I simplify that down to this.
> > >
> > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> > > a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > >
> > > The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> > > flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> > > answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
> > >
> > > When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> > > excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> > > these decision problems decidable.
> > >
> >
> > It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of
> > an
> > arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to
> > run
> > forever....
> >
> > This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
> > terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
> > interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
> >
> > If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
> > problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
> >
> >
>

Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!

> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"

This is not the halting problem.

> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>

This is another problem (not the HP neither)

On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of
>>> an
>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to
>>> run
>>> forever....
>>>
>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>
>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>
>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>
> This is not the halting problem.
>
>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>
>
> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>

The halting problem is one of many problems that is
only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
(thus incorrect) question.

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

On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description
>>>>> of
>>>>> an
>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
>>>>> to
>>>>> run
>>>>> forever....
>>>>>
>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>
>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>
>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>
>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>
>>
>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>
> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>

The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
to the Halting Problem and many others.

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

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:29 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Philosophers that examine these things looking for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > incoherence find it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, do you agree what GUR says?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Give in, my friend.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Graphical User Robots?
> > > > > > > > > > > The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > People believes GUR are going to survive.
> > > > > > > > > > People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What the Hell is GUR ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Selective memory?
> > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I simplify that down to this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
> > > > > > > a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
> > > > > > > flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
> > > > > > > answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
> > > > > > > excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
> > > > > > > these decision problems decidable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > > > > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a
> > > > > > description
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
> > > > > > continue
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > forever....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
> > > > > > terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
> > > > > > interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
> > > > > > problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
> > > >
> > > > > If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
> > > > > Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
> > > >
> > > > This is not the halting problem.
> > > >
> > > > > Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is another problem (not the HP neither)
> > > >
> > >
> > > The halting problem is one of many problems that is
> > > only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
> > > incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
> > > (thus incorrect) question.
> > >
> >
> > What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
> >
>
> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>

So, what is the correct answer of this problem ?: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"

The same, what is the correct answer of the halting problem in your opinion?

On 2/29/2024 4:38 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:29 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a
>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>
>
> So, what is the correct answer of this problem ?: "Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>
> The same, what is the correct answer of the halting problem in your opinion?
>

All incorrect questions are rejected as invalid input.

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

On 2/29/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot
>>>>>>>>>> everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding
>>>>>>>>> of truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is
>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>
>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>> determining, from a description of
>>>> an
>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>> finish running, or continue to
>>>> run
>>>> forever....
>>>>
>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>> English is
>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>
>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand
>>>> what the
>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can
>>>> see, but POOP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>
>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>
>> This is not the halting problem.
>>
>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>
>>
>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>
>
> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
> (thus incorrect) question.
>

The question itself is NOT self-contradictory, but EVERY instance of the
question has a correct answer, just not the one the decider the input is
contradictory to give.

Note, you are a bit on the right track, one of the causes of this
uncomputability is the ability of the system to support the making of an
input that is decider-contrary. IF there was something about the decider
that the input couldn't do, then this common method would break.

The key point is that all these logic system have become powerful enough
with the axioms to support the ability to produce such a result.

And that is one way to keep systemms for becoming incomplete, limit the
power of the expression that you allow in the system.

On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing
>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP
>>>>>>>> is undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>> determining, from a description
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>>>> finish running, or continue
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> run
>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>>>> English is
>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand
>>>>>> what the
>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one
>>>>>> can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>
>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>
>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>
>>
>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>
>
> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>

In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't actually
Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are given certain inputs.

That is just admitting that the system isn't actually decidable, by
trying to outlaw the problems.

The issue then is, you can't tell if a thing that looks like and acts
lie a Turing Machine is actually a PO-Turing Machine, until you can
confirm that it doesn't have any of these contradictory properties.

My guess is that detecting that is probably non-computable, so you can't
tell for sure if what you have is actually a PO-Turing Machine or not

On 2/29/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot
>>>>>>>>>>> everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding
>>>>>>>>>> of truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is
>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>> determining, from a description of
>>>>> an
>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>>> finish running, or continue to
>>>>> run
>>>>> forever....
>>>>>
>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>>> English is
>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand
>>>>> what the
>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one
>>>>> can see, but POOP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>
>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>
>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>
>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>
>>
>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>
> The question itself is NOT self-contradictory, but EVERY instance of the
> question has a correct answer, just not the one the decider the input is
> contradictory to give.
>
> Note, you are a bit on the right track, one of the causes of this
> uncomputability is the ability of the system to support the making of an
> input that is decider-contrary. IF there was something about the decider
> that the input couldn't do, then this common method would break.
>
> The key point is that all these logic system have become powerful enough
> with the axioms to support the ability to produce such a result.
>
> And that is one way to keep systemms for becoming incomplete, limit the
> power of the expression that you allow in the system.

The simple way around this is to understand that
self-contradictory inputs are invalid.

I think that you already agreed with this:

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

*You probably did not understand that the above refutes Tarski*

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

On 2/29/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP
>>>>>>>>> is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>>> determining, from a description
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>>>>> finish running, or continue
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>>>>> English is
>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually,
>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand
>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one
>>>>>>> can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>
>
>
> In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't actually
> Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are given certain
> inputs.
>

No not at all simply make a Turing Machine that does this:

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

Here is Tarski's formalization of the Liar Paradox
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x

Is the Liar Paradox true or false?

Is the simplest of all undecidable decision
problems. That is why it is the anchor basis
of all of my research.

> That is just admitting that the system isn't actually decidable, by
> trying to outlaw the problems.
>
> The issue then is, you can't tell if a thing that looks like and acts
> lie a Turing Machine is actually a PO-Turing Machine, until you can
> confirm that it doesn't have any of these contradictory properties.
>
> My guess is that detecting that is probably non-computable, so you can't
> tell for sure if what you have is actually a PO-Turing Machine or not

On 2/29/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP
>>>>>>>>>> is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to
>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are
>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>>>> determining, from a description
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program
>>>>>>>> will finish running, or continue
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>>>>>> English is
>>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually,
>>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand
>>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one
>>>>>>>> can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this
>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't actually
>> Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are given certain
>> inputs.
>>
>
> No not at all simply make a Turing Machine that does this:
>
> LP = "This sentence is not true."
> Boolean True(English, LP)  is false
> Boolean True(English, ~LP) is false

On 2/29/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/29/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing
>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP
>>>>>>>> is undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>> determining, from a description of
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>>>> finish running, or continue to
>>>>>> run
>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>>>> English is
>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand
>>>>>> what the
>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one
>>>>>> can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>
>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>
>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>
>>
>> The question itself is NOT self-contradictory, but EVERY instance of
>> the question has a correct answer, just not the one the decider the
>> input is contradictory to give.
>>
>> Note, you are a bit on the right track, one of the causes of this
>> uncomputability is the ability of the system to support the making of
>> an input that is decider-contrary. IF there was something about the
>> decider that the input couldn't do, then this common method would break.
>>
>> The key point is that all these logic system have become powerful
>> enough with the axioms to support the ability to produce such a result.
>>
>> And that is one way to keep systemms for becoming incomplete, limit
>> the power of the expression that you allow in the system.
>
> The simple way around this is to understand that
> self-contradictory inputs are invalid.

But if the system ALLOWS the construction of the statement you want to
call "Self-Contradictory" they can't be invalid.

>
> I think that you already agreed with this:
>
> LP = "This sentence is not true."
> Boolean True(English, LP)  is false
> Boolean True(English, ~LP) is false
>
> *You probably did not understand that the above refutes Tarski*
>

Nope.

You just don't understand what Tarski is saying.

You have even effectively admitted he was right.

The Existence of a Truth Predicate means that the Liar Paradox must be a
Truth Bearer, thus a Truth Predicate can't exist.

On 2/29/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/29/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that
>>>>>>>>>>> HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are
>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>>>>> determining, from a description
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program
>>>>>>>>> will finish running, or continue
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>>>>>>> English is
>>>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually,
>>>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first
>>>>>>>>> understand what the
>>>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every
>>>>>>>>> one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this
>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>>>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>>>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>>>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>>>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't actually
>>> Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are given certain
>>> inputs.
>>>
>>
>> No not at all simply make a Turing Machine that does this:
>>
>> LP = "This sentence is not true."
>> Boolean True(English, LP)  is false
>> Boolean True(English, ~LP) is false
>
> In other words, you are admitting that you havve absolutly NO idea what
> a Turing Machine is, and what it can do.
>

On 2024-02-29 21:59:44 +0000, olcott said:

> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.

Not needed. Those who understand English can immediately see what is
wrong there. It only makes sense to ask whether a claim is true or
false. But "What time is it?" is a question, not a claim. Therefore
the question "Is this sentence true or false: 'What time is it?'"
is not a sensible question.

--
Mikko

On 2024-02-29 22:38:04 +0000, wij said:

> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:29 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>>> determining, from a
>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>>>>> finish running, or
>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can
>>>>>>> see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>
>
> So, what is the correct answer of this problem ?: "Is this sentence
> true or false: "What time is it?"

The correct answer is: "Syntax error: an unbalaced quote." (ro something
that means the same).

--
Mikko

On 2024-03-01 02:28:34 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>>> determining, from a description
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>>>>> finish running, or continue
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your English is
>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can
>>>>>>> see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>
>
>
> In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't actually
> Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are given certain
> inputs.
>
> That is just admitting that the system isn't actually decidable, by
> trying to outlaw the problems.
>
> The issue then is, you can't tell if a thing that looks like and acts
> lie a Turing Machine is actually a PO-Turing Machine, until you can
> confirm that it doesn't have any of these contradictory properties.
>
> My guess is that detecting that is probably non-computable, so you
> can't tell for sure if what you have is actually a PO-Turing Machine or
> not

If the restrictions on the acceptability of a Turing macine are sufficiently
strong both the restricted halting problem and the membership or the
restricted domain are Turing solvable. For example, if the head can only move
in one direction.

--
Mikko

On 2024-03-01 03:32:44 +0000, olcott said:

> The simple way around this is to understand that
> self-contradictory inputs are invalid.

They are not unless the problem statements say so. What is or is
not a valid input is specified in the problem statement. Your
opinions don't matter.

--
Mikko

On 1/03/24 04:32, olcott wrote:
> The simple way around this is to understand that
> self-contradictory inputs are invalid.

Every sequence of alphabet symbols is valid input to a Turing machine.
You do not understand this.

"This sentence is not true." is valid input to a Turing machine which
has the QWERTY keyboard symbols as its alphabet.

On 3/1/24 1:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/29/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that
>>>>>>>>>>>> HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are
>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>>>>>> determining, from a description
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program
>>>>>>>>>> will finish running, or continue
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since
>>>>>>>>>> your English is
>>>>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually,
>>>>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first
>>>>>>>>>> understand what the
>>>>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every
>>>>>>>>>> one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this
>>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>>>>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>>>>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>>>>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>>>>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't
>>>> actually Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are
>>>> given certain inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No not at all simply make a Turing Machine that does this:
>>>
>>> LP = "This sentence is not true."
>>> Boolean True(English, LP)  is false
>>> Boolean True(English, ~LP) is false
>>
>> In other words, you are admitting that you havve absolutly NO idea
>> what a Turing Machine is, and what it can do.
>>
>
> Not at all this is the high level architectural design of
> a system that could be implemented as a Turing machine.

On 2/29/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot
>>>>>>>> everyday ?
>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of
>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>
>>>> Selective memory?
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>
>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is
>>>> undecidable.
>>>
>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>
>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>
>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>
>>
>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>> determining, from a description of an
>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>> finish running, or continue to run
>> forever....
>>
>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>> English is
>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>
>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can
>> see, but POOP.
>>
>>
>
> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>

Yes, SOME questions are unanswerable by form.

The Halting question isn't.

You try to LIE by claiming it to be "isomorphic" to your POOP question,
but it isn't.

You POOP is a self-contradictory question, and thus not-answerable, and
perhaps arguable isn't a valid question.

That arguement doesn't apply to the actual Halting Question, which is
perfectly valid to ask, and is wanted to be asked in a number of cases.
(Maybe not for this particular input, but for other inputs).

On 2/29/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot
>>>>>>>>>> everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding
>>>>>>>>> of truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is
>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>
>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>> determining, from a description of
>>>> an
>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>>> finish running, or continue to
>>>> run
>>>> forever....
>>>>
>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
>>>> English is
>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>
>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand
>>>> what the
>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can
>>>> see, but POOP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
>>
>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>
>> This is not the halting problem.
>>
>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>
>>
>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>
>
> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
> (thus incorrect) question.
>

What is "Self-Contradictory" about:

Does the Computation described by this input Halt?

Note, for any specific computation described (which is all you can
actually ask about) there IS a correct answer.

The fact that no Turing Machine (or realizable Computation) can give the
answer just says the problem is non-computable, which is also called
undecidable for yes/no problems.