The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

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

On 12/24/2023 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>
> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
> different meaning thus is a different question.
>
> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
> context of who is asked.
>
> As a concrete example the question:
> "Are you a little girl?"
> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>
> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>

According to the conventional understanding of the halting problem
when the above H is asked:
Does the direct execution of D(D) halt on its input?
both Yes and No are the wrong answer because D was
intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever H says.

That the halting problem is defined to allow self-contradictory
inputs does not actually place any limit on computation.

The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory (thus
incorrect) questions does not place any actual limit on anyone
of anything.

If I ask you: What time it is (yes or no)?
We cannot correctly conclude that you are stupid or ignorant on
the basis that you cannot correctly answer this incorrect 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 12/24/23 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/24/2023 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>
>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>
>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>> context of who is asked.
>>
>> As a concrete example the question:
>> "Are you a little girl?"
>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>
>> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>
> According to the conventional understanding of the halting problem
> when the above H is asked:
> Does the direct execution of D(D) halt on its input?
> both Yes and No are the wrong answer because D was
> intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever H says.

No, because H was a defined program, and thus, for a given input, it can
only give one answer.

IF the H that a particular D is built on will give the answer Halting,
then D gets to see that answer and become non-halting.

If a different H that a different D is built on will given the answer of
Non-Halting, then this new D will see THAT answer, and Halt.

There can not be a single H that does both, so you don't get your
claimed contradiction.

Any entity that you want to claim to act like that just can not be a
program in the sense it is used, so it fails to be a Halt Deciding Program.

You are just showing that you do not understand what a "program"
actually means, showing your stupidity.

>
> That the halting problem is defined to allow self-contradictory
> inputs does not actually place any limit on computation.

But it doesn't, since H needs to be an actual PROGRAM, which has
definite behavior.

D is not "Self-Contradictory", but contradicts the H it is built on,
that has definite behavior.

You claim just shows you are totally ignorant of what Computability is
talking about.

In one sense though, you are right, the Halting Problem itself doesn't
change anything. Even without having discovered it, the limits it
reveals were still present, we just now know at least some of the
boundries, so we learned something, if only what we can not know.

>
> The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory (thus
> incorrect) questions does not place any actual limit on anyone
> of anything.

No, for EVERY H, there is a correct answer for the D built on it, it is
just that the H it was built on never give it.

>
> If I ask you: What time it is (yes or no)?
> We cannot correctly conclude that you are stupid or ignorant on
> the basis that you cannot correctly answer this incorrect question.
>

And that is just a STRAWMAN, showing what your brains are like.

For EVERY D there is a correct answer, its just the H that it was built
on didn't give it.