On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
> self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
> seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
> paradox).
>
> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> yes/no answer to the following question:
>
> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

*A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Because:
(1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.

(2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.

(3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
lacking a correct yes/no answer.

*Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*

This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
that H returns.

When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.

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

On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
> > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
> > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
> > paradox).
> >
> > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> > yes/no answer to the following question:
> >
> >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>
> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>
> Because:
> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>
> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.
>
> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>
> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>
> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
> that H returns.
>
> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>

*Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
decision problems.

When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
ignored.

When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
full context of who is asked.

This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
accept/reject return value from this decider.

It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.

In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
answer within the full context of the question.

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

On 10/11/23 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>  > paradox).
>>  >
>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>  >
>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>
>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>
>> Because:
>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>
>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.
>>
>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>
>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>
>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>> that H returns.
>>
>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>
>
>
> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
> decision problems.
>
> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
> ignored.
>
> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
> full context of who is asked.
>
> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>
> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>
> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
> answer within the full context of the question.
>
>

But the question only has a SINGLE ANSWER that is correct for ALL things
questioned, volitional or program. Note, the question is about a
specific program built on a specific other program, so has a definite
answer. The fact that it makes that program give the wrong answer, just
shows that program is NOT a "Correct Decider" for that class of question.

You are just showing you don't understand that basic definition of the
field, because you are just too stupid.

On 10/11/23 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
> > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
> > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
> > paradox).
> >
> > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> > yes/no answer to the following question:
> >
> >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>
> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>
> Because:
> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>
> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.
>
> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>
> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>
> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
> that H returns.
>
> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>

But the difference that breaks the reasoning is that H is a PROGRAM that
is deterministic, and thus the answer was FIXED at the creation of the
program, while Jack is volitional, and his answer isn't fixed until he
speaks.

Since the behavior of a program is fixed, we can ask about its future
behvior, because that behavior isn't actually in the "future", but came
into existance when the program was created.

The behavior of a volitional being is not.

Thus, your argument is based on a CATEGORY ERROR, and thus, INVALID.

So, all you are proving is you don't understand the difference between a
program and a person.

On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>  > paradox).
>>  >
>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>  >
>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>
>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>
>> Because:
>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>
>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.
>>
>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>
>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>
>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>> that H returns.
>>
>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>
>
>
> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
> decision problems.
>
> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
> ignored.
>
> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
> full context of who is asked.
>
> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>
> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>
> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
> answer within the full context of the question.
>
>

The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
The correct answer for everyone else is "no".

Thus for Jack the question meets the criteria of an incorrect question
as having no correct answer. Linguistics understands that the context
of who was asked cannot be ignored.

In this exact same way the correct return value from H does not exist.

When we assume that H must report on the behavior of the direct
execution of D(D) neither accept nor reject is the correct answer
because D(D) is coded to do the opposite.

Linguistics understands that the context of who was asked cannot be
ignored. Thus input D derives an incorrect question for termination
analyzer H.

The correct answer for every other termination analyzer does exist.

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

On 10/11/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>  > paradox).
>>>  >
>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>  >
>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>
>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>> Because:
>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>
>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.
>>>
>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>
>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>
>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>> that H returns.
>>>
>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>> decision problems.
>>
>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>> ignored.
>>
>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
>> full context of who is asked.
>>
>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>
>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>
>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>
>>
>
> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.

Except that Jack CAN give a correct answer, it just isn't a simple Yes
or No. (and multiple version exist depending on what twisting you allow)

For example Jack can say:
Just saying "No" would be incorrect, but using "NO" in a sentance that
means I affirm that I can meets the requirements.

(Which is correct, as his answer used the required word, and was also a
correct answer)

He can also CORRECTLY say (according to you) that:
Jack can not correctly answer this question with the word spelt N, O

(And that IS correct, because he didn't use the word "No", but did still
state that he couldn't answer the question)

> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>
> Thus for Jack the question meets the criteria of an incorrect question
> as having no correct answer. Linguistics understands that the context
> of who was asked cannot be ignored.
>
> In this exact same way the correct return value from H does not exist.

Except the question isn't asking can H give the correct answer, it is
asking what the correct answer IS, which has a definite answer. You are
just showing your ignorance of the question.

>
> When we assume that H must report on the behavior of the direct
> execution of D(D) neither accept nor reject is the correct answer
> because D(D) is coded to do the opposite.

Nope, because H HAS a definite behavior, and thus WILL either give some
answer or not answer, thus H always gives an incorrct answer to the
actual question..

>
> Linguistics understands that the context of who was asked cannot be
> ignored. Thus input D derives an incorrect question for termination
> analyzer H.
>
> The correct answer for every other termination analyzer does exist.
>

As it does for that one.

You don't understand the definition of a PROGRAM.

You don't understand what the halting question actually is.

You don't understand what it means for two questions to be isomorphic.

You don't understand that when you start to play "grammer" games, you
need to take that into account for what is "isomorphic".

You are just STUPID.

On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>  > paradox).
>>>  >
>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>  >
>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>
>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Let's ask Jack. If he says “yes”, he's saying that “no” is the correct
answer for him, so “yes” is incorrect.

If he says “no”, he's saying that he cannot correctly answer “no”, which
is his answer. So both answers are incorrect. Jack cannot answer the
question correctly.

>>> Because:
>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>
>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.
>>>
>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>
>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>
>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>> that H returns.
>>>
>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>> decision problems.
>>
>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>> ignored.
>>
>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
>> full context of who is asked.
>>
>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>
>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>
>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>
>>
>
> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>
> Thus for Jack the question meets the criteria of an incorrect question
> as having no correct answer. Linguistics understands that the context
> of who was asked cannot be ignored.
>
> In this exact same way the correct return value from H does not exist.
>
> When we assume that H must report on the behavior of the direct
> execution of D(D) neither accept nor reject is the correct answer
> because D(D) is coded to do the opposite.
>
> Linguistics understands that the context of who was asked cannot be
> ignored. Thus input D derives an incorrect question for termination
> analyzer H.
>
> The correct answer for every other termination analyzer does exist.
>
>

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

On 10/12/23 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>  >
>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>  >
>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>
>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>
> Let's ask Jack. If he says “yes”, he's saying that “no” is the correct
> answer for him, so “yes” is incorrect.
>
> If he says “no”, he's saying that he cannot correctly answer “no”, which
> is his answer. So both answers are incorrect. Jack cannot answer the
> question correctly.

Which is irrelevant, as Jack, being a volitional being, doesn't need to
answer with just "Yes" or "No".

Also, you argument just proves your ignorance, as Jack is a differennt
class of things to a Halt Decide.

A "Halt Decder" doesn't actually "Decide" in the same manner. The
"Correct" answer that a computer program can give is the one it is
programmed to give, as if it gives any other answer, the machine it is
running on is broken.

Now, the correct answer for the QUESTION it is trying to answer is
different, but that doesn't depend on the program being asked, but about
the program being asked about.

You are just proving your stupidity, and ignorance, and that fact that
you just don't understand how "logic" actually work.

I suppose this has been clear for a while, since you have been stating
that "proper logic" can't actually work the way that everyone defines
it, but must behave according to a way that you yourself can't define
(you have been asked, and haven't been able to actually define the key
terms of your statement).

This just shows that you don't actually understand a thing about what
you are talking about.

PERIOD.

>
>>>> Because:
>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes
>>>> the
>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>> ignored.
>>>>
>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>
>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>
>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>> that H returns.
>>>>
>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>> decision problems.
>>>
>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>> ignored.
>>>
>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>
>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>
>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>
>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>
>> Thus for Jack the question meets the criteria of an incorrect question
>> as having no correct answer. Linguistics understands that the context
>> of who was asked cannot be ignored.
>>
>> In this exact same way the correct return value from H does not exist.
>>
>> When we assume that H must report on the behavior of the direct
>> execution of D(D) neither accept nor reject is the correct answer
>> because D(D) is coded to do the opposite.
>>
>> Linguistics understands that the context of who was asked cannot be
>> ignored. Thus input D derives an incorrect question for termination
>> analyzer H.
>>
>> The correct answer for every other termination analyzer does exist.
>>
>>
>

On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>  > paradox).
>>>  >
>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>  >
>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>
>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>> Because:
>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>
>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.
>>>
>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>
>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>
>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>> that H returns.
>>>
>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>> decision problems.
>>
>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>> ignored.
>>
>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
>> full context of who is asked.
>>
>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>
>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>
>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>
>>
>
> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>

When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of this
solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question posed to
Jack is incorrect.

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

On 10/14/23 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>  >
>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>  >
>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>
>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>> Because:
>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes
>>>> the
>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>> ignored.
>>>>
>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>
>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>
>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>> that H returns.
>>>>
>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>> decision problems.
>>>
>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>> ignored.
>>>
>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>
>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>
>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>
>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>
>
> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of this
> solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question posed to
> Jack is incorrect.
>
>

Which means you have just shown that you don't know how to write a
proper question.

It also shows that you don't understand that Halting Problem, as the
question the machine in the Halting Problem is supposed to answer the
question: "Does the machine described by the input halt when given the
input give?" which has NO mention of the Halt Decider itself, so your
claims of "equivalence" are just false.

Part of it is your total lack of understanding about what a program is,
as asking what answer can a GIVEN program give for a given input that is
.... is improperly formed, as a given program can only give a single
answer for a given input, the answer it has been programmed for.

Thus, your question is actually something more like, "Which program in
the set of programs defined as ... gives the correct answer to ...?",
and the fact that this shows that no such program exists, just shows
that, that no such program exists, which is EXACTLY the results proven
for the Halting Problem that you are claiming to refute.

SO, in your stupidity, you are claiming an argument that actually proves
something, is in your mind, disproving it.

Thus, you are proving your total stupidity as to how logic works.

Your proof just shwos that there can not be any program H that when
given the input <H^> <H^> where <H^> is the description of the program
H^, and H^ is the program that H^ d calls H with input d d and then does
the opposite of what H says its input will do.

All this proves is that there does not exist a program that correctly
answers the Halting question for ALL inputs that can be given it, as we
have one example that will break any given H (and each H has a different
input that break it).

This doesn't mean the question is invalid, as for any GIVEN H, there is
a GIVNE H^ with a specific correct answer that H should give to be
correct, it just doesn't match the answer it happens to give.

You are just showing your stupidity.

On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>  >
>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>  >
>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>
>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>> Because:
>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes
>>>> the
>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>> ignored.
>>>>
>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>
>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>
>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>> that H returns.
>>>>
>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does
>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>> decision problems.
>>>
>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>> ignored.
>>>
>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the
>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>
>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>
>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>
>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>
>
> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of this
> solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question posed to
> Jack is incorrect.
>
>

When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
is an incorrect question for this decider.

Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.

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

On 10/14/23 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>
>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because:
>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>> changes the
>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>
>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question
>>>> does
>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>> decision problems.
>>>>
>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>>> ignored.
>>>>
>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within
>>>> the
>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>
>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>
>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>
>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>
>>
>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>
>>

Your failure to actually reply

>
> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>

Nope. You don't seem to understand what a decider is, or even what a
PROGRAM is.

That a given decider gives the wrong answer doesn't make the question
incorrect.

Remember, H is a SPECIFIC program that you want to claim you have made
that meets the qualification of a "Correct Halting Decider". Being a
SPECIFIC program, it has a FIXED and SPECIFIC answer for every input

Thus, YOUR question, of what should H return to be correct, is the
illogical question, as that given H has only one answer it CAN give,
which will just happen to be WRONG. (As you are yourself).

So, in this case, the ACTUAL answer of what WOULD be the correct answer
that H could have returned would be Halting, becuase it ACTUALLY says
non-halting and that make the input built on it be Halting.

Thus, there is a "Correct Return Value" for the decider, it just isn't
the one that your H gives. The fact that it is impossible to construct a
program to answer the question about the input built on itself doesn't
make the question "incorrect", in makes the question "non-calculatable".

It is not surprising that some decision problems are non-calculatable,
as there are only a countable infinite number of deciders, but an
un-countablue number of decision problems, so in one sense, we should be
somewhat surprised when we find problems that are calculatable.

Of course, you have shown an inability to understand the nature of the
infinte, so this may be above your head.

> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>

And the question isn't incorrect, as the ACTUAL QUESTION being asked has
a correct answer. You are just showing your stupidity in ignorance about
what you are talking about.

On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>
>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because:
>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>> changes the
>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>
>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question
>>>> does
>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>> decision problems.
>>>>
>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a
>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>>> ignored.
>>>>
>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within
>>>> the
>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>
>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>
>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>
>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>
>>
>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>
>>
>
> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>
> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>

When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
for this decider.

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

On 10/14/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question
>>>>> does
>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>> not a
>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>> within the
>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>
>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>
>
> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
> for this decider.
>
>

No, when both ANSWERS are wrong, (not "from the decider") the question
is wrong.

If the decider doesn't give the correct answer, IT is wrong.

For your H, the CORRECT answer IS HALTING, because that is what H^ <H^>
does since your H <H^> <H^> goes to Qn.

But since H <H^> <H^> goes to Qn, it is just wrong, since the right
answer would have been to go to Qy.

You can't "postulate" that THIS H goes to Qy, becuase it doesn't.

That just shows you think it can be valid logic to assume a falsehood.

You are just showing your TOTAL IGNORANCE of the domain.

Programs do what the program is programmed to do, and NOTHING ELSE.

Your claiming otherwise shows you are a stupid ignorant liar.

On 10/14/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question
>>>>> does
>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>> not a
>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>> within the
>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>
>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>
>
> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
> for this decider.
>
>

Maybe if the question actually WAS, what answer can H return to be
correct, your argument could be correct, but that ISN'T the question,
only your false "equivalence" that shows you don't know how logic works.

The QUESTION is: Does the machine represented by the input to the
decider halt when given the input after the representation.

THAT question has an answer.

A Question with a diffferent answer CAN'T be equivalenet to it.

On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question
>>>>> does
>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>> not a
>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly
>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>> within the
>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct
>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone
>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>
>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>
>
> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
> for this decider.
>
>

Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
person/decider that these are two different questions even
though they have identical words/specification.

The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

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

On 10/14/23 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>> question does
>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>>> not a
>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>> within the
>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>
>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>
>>
>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>> for this decider.
>>
>>
>
> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
> person/decider that these are two different questions even
> though they have identical words/specification.
>
> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>
>

Nope, you are making the category error thinking that a program is a
person, showing your utter stupidity.

How is the question: "Does this program terminate" different based on
what terminator program you give it to?

The program either halts or it doesn't.

Your logic starts by making the error that a GIVEN termination analyizer
might give a different answer to the question then it is actually
programmed to give.

WHen you changed the decider, you chanded the input, thus you are asking
a DIFFERENT Quesiton.

The question is about a SPECIFIC input that is based on a SPECIFIC
decider (the one you originally claimed to be correct).

You are just LYING by calling two different programs and thus two
different input the same.

One aspect of insanity is the inabiilty to see that two difffernt things
are in fact different. but to consider them the same, even when the
difference is pointed out.

By that definition, you are INSANE.

On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>> question does
>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>>> not a
>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer
>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>> within the
>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct
>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>
>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>
>>
>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>> for this decider.
>>
>>
>
> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
> person/decider that these are two different questions even
> though they have identical words/specification.
>
> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>
>

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?

Linguists agree that the above question posed to
Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
anyone else, thus proving that these are two
entirely different questions even though they
have the exact same words.

That other people are ignorant of these things
provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.

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

On 10/14/23 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>> for this decider.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>
>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>
>>
>
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>
> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
> entirely different questions even though they
> have the exact same words.
>
> That other people are ignorant of these things
> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>

So, you are insisting on beating the dead red herring.

Carols answer is: Negative.

If you insist on only yes or no answers, then you get into the realm of
actually self referenctial questions, which can form logical contradictions.

That isn't applicable to the Halt Decider problem as the ONLY question
that is applicable is the Halting Question is:

"Does the Program and Input describe by the input to the decier Halt?"

That question, for any specific input, has an unequivocal answer that
doesn't depend on what decider you give it to, as the behavior described
by the input is always the same independ on who is looking at it.

Thus, your contradiction argument doesn't apply.

For the counter-example program, that means given a DEFINITIVE decider,
I can construct the input that it can't answer, by building a specific
input problem based on it.

Until you define that decider, the question doesn't exist. And once you
define the decider, the question is fixed to be based on THAT decider,
so doesn't change when you hypothesize a different decider, becuase it
IS a different decider, but that doesn't change the input.

Trying to pretend that a given thing is now something different is just
a LIE.

You argue about a DIFFERENT input, one that some how sees who is
deciding it and use that, but such a program isn't allowed, as it isn't
a complete program by itself. This shows your ignorance of the topic.

For the decider that you try to claim is correct (in that it answer no)
the difinative correct answer is Yes, because THAT input given,
represent the specific program H^ built on the specific decider H that
you stipulate will answer no to the question about this input.

And thus any "correct" decider, (including Carol) will answer "Yes", and
any decider (includeing H) that answers "No" is incorrect. THus H is
just incorrect and thus isn't actually a correct Halt Decider.

All you logic just proves the theorem you claim to be disproving,
showing your ignorance of logic.

On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to
>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or
>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>> for this decider.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>
>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>
>>
>
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>
> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
> entirely different questions even though they
> have the exact same words.
>
> That other people are ignorant of these things
> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.

H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
machine code.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>
>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>
>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>> entirely different questions even though they
>> have the exact same words.
>>
>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>
> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
> machine code.

This proves that
Does your input halt on its input?
is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).

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

On 10/14/23 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>
>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>> have the exact same words.
>>>
>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>
>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>> machine code.
>
> This proves that
> Does your input halt on its input?
> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>

No, D, which is built on the ONE AND ONLY machine that is claimed to
give the correct answer, which is the H that returns 0 to H(D,D) halts,
and thus

"Does Input Halt on its input?" has the CORRECT answer of YES, because
the PROGRAM D, when given the input D, will halt.

The fact that H needs to abort its simulation and "guess" and answer,
doesn't give it liberty to call the wrong answer correct, it just shows
that it is impossible for THIS H to compute the correct answer.

On 10/14/23 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of
>>>>>> this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the question
>>>>>> posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>
>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>
>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>> entirely different questions even though they
>> have the exact same words.
>>
>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.

Nope, IT CAN'T, because the "Behavior of the Input" to a halt decider is
DEFINED to be the Behavior of the Machine Described.

Remember, D is defined to call the ORIGINAL (and only machine allowed to
be called) H. Your "logic" fails to handle that.

You logic also fails by assuming incorrect premises, as this H doesn't
acutally DO a correct simulation, so an question based on it doing one
is based on an incorrect premise, so your whole arguement falls appart.

You are just proving your stupidity.

>
> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
> machine code.

And just because you can give a reason you need to do something doesn't
make it right.

"Why" doesn't matter.

H(D,D) DOES abort its simulation, because that is what its code says it
is to do. Since it DOES return the non-halting answer, because that is
how it is coded. means that D(D) will halt.

This means Halting is the correct answer, and "Non-Halting" is the
incorrect answer, and thus H(D,D) returning 0 is just wrong.

You are in effect, agruing that wrong answers can be correct, which also
means that Jack/Carol can be CORRECT in saying that they can't correctly
answer "No", and thus you refurte your own arguement.

On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions*
>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>
>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>
>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>> have the exact same words.
>>>
>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>
>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>> machine code.
>
> This proves that
> Does your input halt on its input?
> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>

The behavior of D simulated by H is the behavior of the input to H.
The behavior of D simulated by H1 is the behavior of the input to H1.

The behavior of D(D) directly executed by main() is the same as
the behavior of D simulated by H1.

The behavior of D simulated by H is not the same as the behavior of D
simulated by H1 because D simulated by H calls its simulator and D
simulated by H1 does not call its simulator.

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

On 10/14/23 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2023 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2023 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2023 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2023 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>  > self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
>>>>>>>>>>>  > seem a little like the following paradox (call it the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gotcha"
>>>>>>>>>>>  > paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>  > yes/no answer to the following question:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  >        Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *A PhD computer science professor made these improvements*
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked
>>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking a correct yes/no answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>>>> H that
>>>>>>>>>>> reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
>>>>>>>>>>> Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> Questions*
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a
>>>>>>>>>> question does
>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>>>>>> decision problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the context of who is asked a question determines whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>>>>> question has a correct answer then this context can never be
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>> from this person then this question is construed as incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>> full context of who is asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> accept/reject return value from this decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> else or the input to the decider can be decided by another
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer within the full context of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer from Jack does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> The correct answer for everyone else is "no".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element
>>>>>>>> of this solution set is a correct answer from Jack then the
>>>>>>>> question posed to Jack is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a decider/input decision problem instance lacks a correct
>>>>>>> return value from its decider then this decision problem instance
>>>>>>> is an incorrect question for this decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect questions correctly place the blame on the question
>>>>>>> and thus do not incorrectly place the blame on the answerer/decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When both Boolean return values from a decider/input pair are the
>>>>>> wrong answer then the decider/input pair is an incorrect question
>>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linguists understand that when the same word-for-word question
>>>>> has a correct answer/return value from one person/decider
>>>>> and does not have a correct answer/return value from another
>>>>> person/decider that these are two different questions even
>>>>> though they have identical words/specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input D to termination analyzer H is a different question
>>>>> when posed to H than when this exact same input is posed to H1.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>>>>
>>>> Linguists agree that the above question posed to
>>>> Carol has entirely different meaning when posed to
>>>> anyone else, thus proving that these are two
>>>> entirely different questions even though they
>>>> have the exact same words.
>>>>
>>>> That other people are ignorant of these things
>>>> provides zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> It is clear that the input to H(D,D) has different
>>> behavior than this exact same input to H1(D,D) has.
>>>
>>> H must abort the simulation of its input to prevent
>>> it own non-termination. H1(D,D) need not abort the
>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.
>>> In both cases the input is the exact same bytes of
>>> machine code.
>>
>> This proves that
>> Does your input halt on its input?
>> is a different question for H(D,D) than H1(D,D).
>>
>
> The behavior of D simulated by H is the behavior of the input to H.