On 3/1/2024 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
>

Yet the most of the greatest minds in the field of philosophy of
logic do not understand that epistemological antinomies are neither
true nor false thus are outside of the domain of decision problems.

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

On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
>

On 3/1/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
>

The correct philosophical foundation of the notion of truth
itself proves that epistemological antinomies have no truth
value because they are not truth bearers proves that they are
outside of the domain of decision problems.

People that learn by rote memorization never pay any attention
to the coherence or incoherence of what they learned by rote.

Epistemological antinomies have as much truth value as
this question: What time is 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 3/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
> of the direct execution of its input.

On 3/1/2024 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
>> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
>> of the direct execution of its input.
>
> Except that you don't have Ĥ.H being the same machine as H as somehow
> they an give different answers.
>
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H is able to
>> correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> As long as some computable criteria exists for Ĥ.H to transition
>> to Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn, then H has its basis to correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> H simply looks for whatever wrong answer that Ĥ.H returns and
>> reports on the halting or not halting behavior of that.
>>
>
> And thus isn't Ĥ.H, and so you LIE that you are following "every detail"
>
> You are just provving that you are a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

On 3/1/24 3:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
And thus isn't Ĥ.H, and so you LIE that you are following "every detail"
>>
>> You are just proving that you are a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>
> You (and everyone else here) knows that I honestly
> believe what I say thus you lie when you call me a liar.
> You have been called out on this by others before.
>
>
>

Yes, and that makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, as you believe your own
lies despite seeing that they can not be true.

Blantant disregard for the truth does not absole you of being a LIAR.

It also makes you an IDIOT.

On 2024-03-01 17:09:46 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/1/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The correct philosophical foundation of the notion of truth
> itself proves that epistemological antinomies have no truth
> value because they are not truth bearers proves that they are
> outside of the domain of decision problems.

That does not contradict what I said above.

> People that learn by rote memorization never pay any attention
> to the coherence or incoherence of what they learned by rote.

People who learn by rote memorization can do something useful.
Some can apply that knowledge, others can tell to someone who
doesn't already know but can apply.

--
Mikko

On 2024-03-01 16:56:31 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/1/2024 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Yet the most of the greatest minds in the field of philosophy of
> logic do not understand that epistemological antinomies are neither
> true nor false thus are outside of the domain of decision problems.

How meany of the greatest you counted?

--
Mikko

On 3/2/2024 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-01 17:09:46 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/1/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The correct philosophical foundation of the notion of truth
>> itself proves that epistemological antinomies have no truth
>> value because they are not truth bearers proves that they are
>> outside of the domain of decision problems.
>
> That does not contradict what I said above.

Yes it does. it is generically the case that every input
to a decision problem either has a correct yes/no answer
or this input is outside of the domain of this decider.

>> People that learn by rote memorization never pay any attention
>> to the coherence or incoherence of what they learned by rote.
>
> People who learn by rote memorization can do something useful.
> Some can apply that knowledge, others can tell to someone who
> doesn't already know but can apply.
>

People that learn by rote memorization never bother to examine
whether or not what they memorized is coherent or incoherent.
Logicians are this way philosophers of logic are not this way.

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

On 3/2/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-01 16:56:31 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/1/2024 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Yet the most of the greatest minds in the field of philosophy of
>> logic do not understand that epistemological antinomies are neither
>> true nor false thus are outside of the domain of decision problems.
>
> How meany of the greatest you counted?
>

I did a key word search on Google Scholar and found that
hardly any philosophers of logic or truth understood that
the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false because it is
simply not a truth bearer. The strongest statement that
I could find suggested that the Liar Paradox might not
be a proposition.

Here is one of the greatest mind in the field
that did not understand this:
Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke (1975)
https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf

A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
language, semantics, logic, and related fields, often
characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

The search for philosophers that understand that the
Liar Paradox is simply not a truth bearer and thus
has the same truth value as this question: "What time is it?"
is ongoing.

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

On 3/2/2024 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-01 17:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
>>>> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
>>>> of the direct execution of its input.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H is able to
>>>> correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> Hard to do if Ĥ.H says the same as H.
>>> Hard to ensure that Ĥ.H does not say the same as H.
>>>
>>
>> Both H and Ĥ.H simulate their inputs until they see that these
>> inputs must be aborted to prevent their own infinite execution.
>> When they find that they must abort the simulation of their
>> inputs they transition to their NO state.
>>
>> This results in Ĥ.H transitioning to Ĥ.Hqn and H transitioning
>> to H.qy. I have already empirically proved that two identical
>> machines on identical input can transition to different final
>> states when one of these identical machines has a pathological
>> relationship with its input and the other does not
>
> Why did they differ?

On 3/2/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2024 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-01 17:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
>>>>> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
>>>>> of the direct execution of its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H is able to
>>>>> correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> Hard to do if Ĥ.H says the same as H.
>>>> Hard to ensure that Ĥ.H does not say the same as H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both H and Ĥ.H simulate their inputs until they see that these
>>> inputs must be aborted to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>> When they find that they must abort the simulation of their
>>> inputs they transition to their NO state.
>>>
>>> This results in Ĥ.H transitioning to Ĥ.Hqn and H transitioning
>>> to H.qy. I have already empirically proved that two identical
>>> machines on identical input can transition to different final
>>> states when one of these identical machines has a pathological
>>> relationship with its input and the other does not
>>
>> Why did they differ?
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>
> Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H never
> reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩

On 3/3/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2024 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-01 17:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
>>>>>> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
>>>>>> of the direct execution of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H is able to
>>>>>> correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to do if Ĥ.H says the same as H.
>>>>> Hard to ensure that Ĥ.H does not say the same as H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both H and Ĥ.H simulate their inputs until they see that these
>>>> inputs must be aborted to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>> When they find that they must abort the simulation of their
>>>> inputs they transition to their NO state.
>>>>
>>>> This results in Ĥ.H transitioning to Ĥ.Hqn and H transitioning
>>>> to H.qy. I have already empirically proved that two identical
>>>> machines on identical input can transition to different final
>>>> states when one of these identical machines has a pathological
>>>> relationship with its input and the other does not
>>>
>>> Why did they differ?
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>
>> Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H never
>> reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>
> So?
>
>>
>> Humans can see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H
>> cannot possibly terminate unless this simulation is aborted.
>>
>> Humans can also see that Ĥ.H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does abort
>> its simulation then Ĥ will halt.
>>
>> It seems quite foolish to believe that computers cannot
>> possibly ever see this too.
>>
>
>
> We are not "Computations", and in particular, we are not H.
>
> And Yes, (if we are smart) we can see that there is no answer that H can
> give and be correct.

On 3/3/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2024 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-01 17:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
>>>>>>> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
>>>>>>> of the direct execution of its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H is able to
>>>>>>> correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hard to do if Ĥ.H says the same as H.
>>>>>> Hard to ensure that Ĥ.H does not say the same as H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both H and Ĥ.H simulate their inputs until they see that these
>>>>> inputs must be aborted to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>>> When they find that they must abort the simulation of their
>>>>> inputs they transition to their NO state.
>>>>>
>>>>> This results in Ĥ.H transitioning to Ĥ.Hqn and H transitioning
>>>>> to H.qy. I have already empirically proved that two identical
>>>>> machines on identical input can transition to different final
>>>>> states when one of these identical machines has a pathological
>>>>> relationship with its input and the other does not
>>>>
>>>> Why did they differ?
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>
>>> Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H never
>>> reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>>
>> So?
>>
>>>
>>> Humans can see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H
>>> cannot possibly terminate unless this simulation is aborted.
>>>
>>> Humans can also see that Ĥ.H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does abort
>>> its simulation then Ĥ will halt.
>>>
>>> It seems quite foolish to believe that computers cannot
>>> possibly ever see this too.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We are not "Computations", and in particular, we are not H.
>>
>> And Yes, (if we are smart) we can see that there is no answer that H
>> can give and be correct.
>
> That there is no Ĥ.H that can correctly decide halting for ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> does not actual entail that there is no H that can do this.

On 3/3/2024 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2024 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-01 17:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
>>>>>>>> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
>>>>>>>> of the direct execution of its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H is able to
>>>>>>>> correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hard to do if Ĥ.H says the same as H.
>>>>>>> Hard to ensure that Ĥ.H does not say the same as H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both H and Ĥ.H simulate their inputs until they see that these
>>>>>> inputs must be aborted to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>>>> When they find that they must abort the simulation of their
>>>>>> inputs they transition to their NO state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This results in Ĥ.H transitioning to Ĥ.Hqn and H transitioning
>>>>>> to H.qy. I have already empirically proved that two identical
>>>>>> machines on identical input can transition to different final
>>>>>> states when one of these identical machines has a pathological
>>>>>> relationship with its input and the other does not
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did they differ?
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>
>>>> Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H never
>>>> reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Humans can see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H
>>>> cannot possibly terminate unless this simulation is aborted.
>>>>
>>>> Humans can also see that Ĥ.H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does abort
>>>> its simulation then Ĥ will halt.
>>>>
>>>> It seems quite foolish to believe that computers cannot
>>>> possibly ever see this too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not "Computations", and in particular, we are not H.
>>>
>>> And Yes, (if we are smart) we can see that there is no answer that H
>>> can give and be correct.
>>
>> That there is no Ĥ.H that can correctly decide halting for ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> does not actual entail that there is no H that can do this.
>
> Since they are the EXACT SAME ALGORITHM, it does.

On 3/3/24 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2024 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-01 17:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have reverted to every detail of the original halting problem
>>>>>>>>> thus now accept that a halt decider must report on the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of the direct execution of its input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ contradicts Ĥ.H and does not contradict H, thus H is able to
>>>>>>>>> correctly decide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hard to do if Ĥ.H says the same as H.
>>>>>>>> Hard to ensure that Ĥ.H does not say the same as H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both H and Ĥ.H simulate their inputs until they see that these
>>>>>>> inputs must be aborted to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>>>>> When they find that they must abort the simulation of their
>>>>>>> inputs they transition to their NO state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This results in Ĥ.H transitioning to Ĥ.Hqn and H transitioning
>>>>>>> to H.qy. I have already empirically proved that two identical
>>>>>>> machines on identical input can transition to different final
>>>>>>> states when one of these identical machines has a pathological
>>>>>>> relationship with its input and the other does not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why did they differ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>>>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H never
>>>>> reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Humans can see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.H
>>>>> cannot possibly terminate unless this simulation is aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Humans can also see that Ĥ.H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does abort
>>>>> its simulation then Ĥ will halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems quite foolish to believe that computers cannot
>>>>> possibly ever see this too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are not "Computations", and in particular, we are not H.
>>>>
>>>> And Yes, (if we are smart) we can see that there is no answer that H
>>>> can give and be correct.
>>>
>>> That there is no Ĥ.H that can correctly decide halting for ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> does not actual entail that there is no H that can do this.
>>
>> Since they are the EXACT SAME ALGORITHM, it does.
>
> Both H and Ĥ.H transition to their NO state when a correct and
> complete simulation of their input would cause their own infinite
> execution and otherwise transition to their YES state.
>
> Humans can see that this criteria derives different answers
> for Ĥ.H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ than for H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
>

On 2024-03-02 18:06:01 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/2/2024 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-01 17:09:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/1/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The correct philosophical foundation of the notion of truth
>>> itself proves that epistemological antinomies have no truth
>>> value because they are not truth bearers proves that they are
>>> outside of the domain of decision problems.
>>
>> That does not contradict what I said above.
>
> Yes it does. it is generically the case that every input
> to a decision problem either has a correct yes/no answer
> or this input is outside of the domain of this decider.

No, it doesn't. It is generically the case that the domain
is what the problem specification says. If you leave anything
out of the domain you will have at most a partial solution,
not the solution of the problem.

--
Mikko

On 3/4/2024 8:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-02 18:06:01 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/2/2024 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-01 17:09:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The correct philosophical foundation of the notion of truth
>>>> itself proves that epistemological antinomies have no truth
>>>> value because they are not truth bearers proves that they are
>>>> outside of the domain of decision problems.
>>>
>>> That does not contradict what I said above.
>>
>> Yes it does. it is generically the case that every input
>> to a decision problem either has a correct yes/no answer
>> or this input is outside of the domain of this decider.
>
> No, it doesn't. It is generically the case that the domain
> is what the problem specification says. If you leave anything
> out of the domain you will have at most a partial solution,
> not the solution of the problem.
>

I have reversed my position on this.

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

On 3/4/2024 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/4/24 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/4/2024 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/4/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:24:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *This principle seems to be sound*
>>>>>> Two identical machines must derive the same result when
>>>>>> applied to the same input.
>>>>>
>>>>> It quite self-evidently is, as it follows from the meanings of
>>>>> "identical" and "same" and other words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, two physical machines are never exactly identical
>>>>> so one may malfunction in a way the other doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> Both H and Ĥ.H transition to their NO state when a correct and
>>>> complete simulation of their input would cause their own infinite
>>>> execution and otherwise transition to their YES state.
>>>>
>>>> This has different results when Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is embedded in
>>>> a machine that copies its input than when H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not
>>>> embedded in such a machine. The infinite loop appended to
>>>> Ĥ.H has no effect on this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does it have diffferent results?
>>>
>>> They are (or at least are claimed to be) the EXACT same algorithm,
>>> and thus the exact same set of deterministic instructions, processing
>>> the exact same input.
>>>
>>
>> The input to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can cause it to fail to halt.
>> The input to Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possible cause it to fail to halt.
>> Can you see this?
>
> IF H wait to see what H^.H does, then H^.H will also wait to see what
> its simulated (H^) (H^) does when it gets to the simualte H^.H (H^) (H^)
> and NOBODY every halts to give an answer.
>

Both H and Ĥ.H transition to their NO state when a correct and
complete simulation of their input would cause their own infinite
execution and otherwise transition to their YES state.

When we much more clearly understand that H and Ĥ are in
separate memory addresses of a RASP machine where every
P knows its own address then it is much easier to see
that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will meet their identical
criteria differently.

> You seem to conviently forget this fact, which is just a form of LYING.
>
>>
>>> I guess you are just admitting that you are either a total idiot
>>> thinking that the impossible is going to happen, or are just a
>>> ignorant pathological lying idiot (or likely BOTH).
>>>
>>> You are just proving your  STUPIDITY, and that you have ZERO reguard
>>> for what is TRUE.
>>
>> Not at all. Correcting the incorrect foundation of the
>> notion of analytic truth is my whole reason for pursuing
>> these things.
>
> The DO SO, and not try to work inside a system you claim is incorrect.

That is why I am tentatively switching to RASP machines
where every P knows its own address.

>>
>> When you take the incorrect foundation as your basis
>> you cannot see its error.
>>
>
> And trying to change the foundation while keeping what was built on it
> is impossibe.
>
> As I have said, you are WELCOME to start at your new foundation and
> built up just remember, you can't just use anything that was built on
> the foundation you rejected. You need to start ALL OVER.
>

I only reject the limitations of Turing Machines compared
to RASP machines where every P knows its own address.

> I don't think you understand this, because you just don't understand how
> logic works. This is what has turned you into the ignorant pathological
> lying idiot you have made yourself.
>

Or I understand that the foundations of logic have errors
that cause my views to diverge from the herd.

>
> HINT: This means start by listing out ALL of the basic truths you are
> going to accept, and the rules of logic you are going to allow, and then
> see what you can actually prove from it.
>

For computer science I only need a RASP machine where
every P knows its own address.

When we do this then H1 is the decider and H/D is
the counter-example input.

> Of course, this means you may need to study the systems you are
> rejecting to understand what parts you might want to keep and what parts
> you are rejecting

If a TM can do what H1(D,D) can do then my refutation
of the halting problem does not refute Church/Turing
otherwise it does refute Church/Turing.

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

On 2024-03-04 16:53:10 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/4/2024 8:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-02 18:06:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2024 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-01 17:09:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct philosophical foundation of the notion of truth
>>>>> itself proves that epistemological antinomies have no truth
>>>>> value because they are not truth bearers proves that they are
>>>>> outside of the domain of decision problems.
>>>>
>>>> That does not contradict what I said above.
>>>
>>> Yes it does. it is generically the case that every input
>>> to a decision problem either has a correct yes/no answer
>>> or this input is outside of the domain of this decider.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It is generically the case that the domain
>> is what the problem specification says. If you leave anything
>> out of the domain you will have at most a partial solution,
>> not the solution of the problem.
>>
>
> I have reversed my position on this.

Have you already updated your web page?

--
Mikko

On 2024-03-02 18:25:40 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/2/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-01 16:56:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/1/2024 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet the most of the greatest minds in the field of philosophy of
>>> logic do not understand that epistemological antinomies are neither
>>> true nor false thus are outside of the domain of decision problems.
>>
>> How meany of the greatest you counted?
>>
>
> I did a key word search on Google Scholar and found that
> hardly any philosophers of logic or truth understood that
> the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false because it is
> simply not a truth bearer. The strongest statement that
> I could find suggested that the Liar Paradox might not
> be a proposition.

How about those who didn't mention it at all?

> Here is one of the greatest mind in the field
> that did not understand this:
> Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke (1975)
> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>
> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
> language, semantics, logic, and related fields, often
> characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>
> The search for philosophers that understand that the
> Liar Paradox is simply not a truth bearer and thus
> has the same truth value as this question: "What time is it?"
> is ongoing.

Why would anyone care about philosophers' understanding?

--
Mikko

On 3/5/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2024 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-02 16:24:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This principle seems to be sound*
>>>>>>> Two identical machines must derive the same result when
>>>>>>> applied to the same input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It quite self-evidently is, as it follows from the meanings of
>>>>>> "identical" and "same" and other words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, two physical machines are never exactly identical
>>>>>> so one may malfunction in a way the other doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> Both H and Ĥ.H transition to their NO state when a correct and
>>>>> complete simulation of their input would cause their own infinite
>>>>> execution and otherwise transition to their YES state.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has different results when Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is embedded in
>>>>> a machine that copies its input than when H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not
>>>>> embedded in such a machine. The infinite loop appended to
>>>>> Ĥ.H has no effect on this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does it have diffferent results?
>>>>
>>>> They are (or at least are claimed to be) the EXACT same algorithm,
>>>> and thus the exact same set of deterministic instructions,
>>>> processing the exact same input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The input to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can cause it to fail to halt.
>>> The input to Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possible cause it to fail to halt.
>>> Can you see this?
>>
>> IF H wait to see what H^.H does, then H^.H will also wait to see what
>> its simulated (H^) (H^) does when it gets to the simualte H^.H (H^)
>> (H^) and NOBODY every halts to give an answer.
>>
>
> Both H and Ĥ.H transition to their NO state when a correct and
> complete simulation of their input would cause their own infinite
> execution and otherwise transition to their YES state.
>
> When we much more clearly understand that H and Ĥ are in
> separate memory addresses of a RASP machine where every
> P knows its own address then it is much easier to see
> that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will meet their identical
> criteria differently.

A single RASP machine doesn't have multiple memory spaces.

A single RASP machine is just one singe program

You are just proving that you are just a stupid ignorant pathological
lying idiot.

>
>> You seem to conviently forget this fact, which is just a form of LYING.
>>
>>>
>>>> I guess you are just admitting that you are either a total idiot
>>>> thinking that the impossible is going to happen, or are just a
>>>> ignorant pathological lying idiot (or likely BOTH).
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving your  STUPIDITY, and that you have ZERO reguard
>>>> for what is TRUE.
>>>
>>> Not at all. Correcting the incorrect foundation of the
>>> notion of analytic truth is my whole reason for pursuing
>>> these things.
>>
>> The DO SO, and not try to work inside a system you claim is incorrect.
>
> That is why I am tentatively switching to RASP machines
> where every P knows its own address.

Which means you "programs" are no longer necessarily Computations,
unless you have been careful to include ALL their inputs in their
definition.

>
>>>
>>> When you take the incorrect foundation as your basis
>>> you cannot see its error.
>>>
>>
>> And trying to change the foundation while keeping what was built on it
>> is impossibe.
>>
>> As I have said, you are WELCOME to start at your new foundation and
>> built up just remember, you can't just use anything that was built on
>> the foundation you rejected. You need to start ALL OVER.
>>
>
> I only reject the limitations of Turing Machines compared
> to RASP machines where every P knows its own address.

Because you need your P to not be the required computation, so you can
lie about it.

>
>> I don't think you understand this, because you just don't understand
>> how logic works. This is what has turned you into the ignorant
>> pathological lying idiot you have made yourself.
>>
>
> Or I understand that the foundations of logic have errors
> that cause my views to diverge from the herd.

So, why are you using it?

You have a choice, use the system as it is defined, or create a totally
new system. Yu

>
>>
>> HINT: This means start by listing out ALL of the basic truths you are
>> going to accept, and the rules of logic you are going to allow, and
>> then see what you can actually prove from it.
>>
>
> For computer science I only need a RASP machine where
> every P knows its own address.
>
> When we do this then H1 is the decider and H/D is
> the counter-example input.

Not if the "Decider" used the RASP structure to be a non-computation
(i.e., use a hidden input, like its address).

>
>> Of course, this means you may need to study the systems you are
>> rejecting to understand what parts you might want to keep and what
>> parts you are rejecting
>
> If a TM can do what H1(D,D) can do then my refutation
> of the halting problem does not refute Church/Turing
> otherwise it does refute Church/Turing.
>

Nope, because your "Machines" are NOT "Computations", since they use a
"hidden input".

Make it clear that your H is actually a function of its own address, and
suddenly Church/Turing shows that right result, and your "Counter
Example" is proven to be a lie.

You don't seem to understand that LYING about what you are doing (by
giving the functions a hidden input) does't prove anything.

On 3/5/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-04 16:53:10 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/4/2024 8:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-02 18:06:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2024 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-01 17:09:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct philosophical foundation of the notion of truth
>>>>>> itself proves that epistemological antinomies have no truth
>>>>>> value because they are not truth bearers proves that they are
>>>>>> outside of the domain of decision problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not contradict what I said above.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does. it is generically the case that every input
>>>> to a decision problem either has a correct yes/no answer
>>>> or this input is outside of the domain of this decider.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. It is generically the case that the domain
>>> is what the problem specification says. If you leave anything
>>> out of the domain you will have at most a partial solution,
>>> not the solution of the problem.
>>>
>>
>> I have reversed my position on this.
>
> Have you already updated your web page?
>

I have many papers on Researchgate here is my most recent one:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

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

I may update that one with the algorithm suggested by Mike
and anchor it better in the Linz Halting problem proof.

The key most important discovery is that it is the combination
of H/D that forms the single counter-example input to H1.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

In other words H/D is isomorphic to Linz Ĥ and H1 is
isomorphic to Linz H. Actual Turing machines do not
call other Turing Machines instead they embed these
machines within themselves. That most texts on the
halting problem have D calling H lead me astray for
may years.

Because of this I reversed my position and no longer claim
that H(D,D) reports on the behavior specified by its input
(it does, but this is unconventional). When it is construed
that H must report on the behavior of the direct execution
of its input it does get the wrong answer yet only because
the combination of H/D is self-contradictory.

In other words the halting problem only proves that an
otherwise correct halt decider H can be caused to report
incorrectly by embedding it as Ĥ.Hq0 in another machine
Ĥ that contradicts every value that it returns.

That this has no actual effect on the original H is
apparently too difficult for many people to understand.

It is as easy as first grade arithmetic to me because
I fully understand all of the details of how this works.

My H1(D,D) machine versus my H(D,D) machine conclusively
proves that when two otherwise identical machine are
at different locations in memory then when each is applied
to the same input they can correctly derived different results.

They correctly derive different results because these machine
are at different locations in memory only one of these two machines
has its return value contradicted and the other does not.

People that disagree with this are disagreeing with empirically
verified facts. The x86 execution race clearly proves that H(D,D)
does meet its "abort simulation" criteria and H1(D,D) does not
meet this criteria.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

Richard has agreed that Ĥ.H must transition to Ĥ.Hqn
to prevent its own infinite execution and this causes
Ĥ to halt.

*This entails that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would be correct to transition to H.qy*

So I have shown that a correct halt status for the counter-example
input <is> possible and Richard's last remaining rebuttal to this
is that he doesn't think that H is is smart enough to do this.

*When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ uses the exact same criteria as Ĥ.H*
Both H and Ĥ.H transition to their NO state when a correct and
complete simulation of their input would cause their own infinite
execution and otherwise transition to their YES state.

When they both apply this criteria correctly then
Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to NO and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to YES.

Simply not believing that they can do this is not really
any actual rebuttal at all.

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

On 3/5/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-02 18:25:40 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/2/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-01 16:56:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/1/2024 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet the most of the greatest minds in the field of philosophy of
>>>> logic do not understand that epistemological antinomies are neither
>>>> true nor false thus are outside of the domain of decision problems.
>>>
>>> How meany of the greatest you counted?
>>>
>>
>> I did a key word search on Google Scholar and found that
>> hardly any philosophers of logic or truth understood that
>> the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false because it is
>> simply not a truth bearer. The strongest statement that
>> I could find suggested that the Liar Paradox might not
>> be a proposition.
>
> How about those who didn't mention it at all?
>
>> Here is one of the greatest mind in the field
>> that did not understand this:
>> Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke (1975)
>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf

Update I was wrong about Kripke he did say that the
Liar Paradox is ungrounded and this is a correct view.

>>
>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
>> language, semantics, logic, and related fields, often
>> characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>
>> The search for philosophers that understand that the
>> Liar Paradox is simply not a truth bearer and thus
>> has the same truth value as this question: "What time is it?"
>> is ongoing.
>
> Why would anyone care about philosophers' understanding?
>

The only possible way for people in technical fields to
know that their entire basis of reasoning is correct is
to validate the foundation basis of this reasoning.

They never do this thus never become aware that their
foundational assumptions are simply incorrect.

How can we possibly know that the definitions of
technical terms of the art accepted by all those
in the field are actually incorrect?

The definitions of technical terms can only be
shown to be incorrect when they derive incoherence.

If the incoherence that they derive is at the level
of their foundation then no one not examining this
foundation ever notices the incoherence.

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

On 3/5/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-05 00:56:19 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> Correcting the incorrect foundation of the notion of analytic
>> truth is my whole reason for pursuing these things.
>
> Correcting means replacing. If you replace the foundation you
> must also replace the term "analytic truth" as you cannot
> replace the emaning of an existing term.
>

I started doing this in another forum referring to Analytic(Olcott).
Analytic(Olcott) means true on the basis of the meaning of its words
such that the entire relevant meaning of these words is specified
as text. Because of this we can know that "dogs bark" without ever
having to hear an actual dog barking.

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