https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.

For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
pathological input as semantically unsound.

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

On 1/3/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>
> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>
>

Nope.

How do you get that?

What is "semantically unsound" about the program D?

What semantic rule was broken in its construction?

You, who think D isn't actually program when it is defined to be one.

That only proves that your H isn't a program, and thus your whole proof
is just a big lie.

On 1/2/2024 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>
> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
> pathological input as semantically unsound.

The question: Does the barber shave himself?
has no correct answer from [yes/no] so ZFC rejects the question.

When we apply the same reasoning to H(D,D) because H has
no [0/1] return value corresponding to the direct execution
of D(D) we reject the input just like ZFC rejects the question.

The Halting paradox can be solved in the same way that ZFC
solved Russell's Paradox. ZFC establishes the precedent
that self-referential paradox can be solved.

In the same way that a set is no longer allowed to contain
itself as a member an input is not allowed to call its own
termination analyzer. These inputs are recognized and rejected.

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

On 1/3/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>>
>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>
> The question: Does the barber shave himself?
> has no correct answer from [yes/no] so ZFC rejects the question.
>
> When we apply the same reasoning to H(D,D) because H has
> no [0/1] return value corresponding to the direct execution
> of D(D) we reject the input just like ZFC rejects the question.
>
> The Halting paradox can be solved in the same way that ZFC
> solved Russell's Paradox. ZFC establishes the precedent
> that self-referential paradox can be solved.
>
> In the same way that a set is no longer allowed to contain
> itself as a member an input is not allowed to call its own
> termination analyzer. These inputs are recognized and rejected.
>

So, you don't understand between questions that have a subjective
reference and those that don.t!

Just like you have admitted that you are lying when you say that D is
built just like the proofs you are trying to refute, since your D isn't
a "program", but in the proofs, it is a Turing Machine/Program
representation.

You have demonstrrate (like you did above) that you think two things
with significant differences can still be "the same thing".

You think that the correct answer to an objective question (like does
D(D) Halt) isn't based on the direct objective facts about it, but on
the "opinion" of who you are asking (and thus agree that Trump could be
correct that He won the presidential election because of the "evidence"
he has that it was stolen).

Note, D doesn't call "its termination analyzer", but always H, so there
is no "reference" to create that subjective reference, and thus no
self-contradiction.

So, you are just proving that you are that ignorant, hypocritical,
pathological lying idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.

On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>
> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>
>

So you agree that Turing machines can't be halt deciders?

On 1/3/24 16:31, olcott wrote:
>
> The question: Does the barber shave himself?
> has no correct answer from [yes/no] so ZFC rejects the question.
>

Ridiculous. The correct answer is yes if the barber shaves himself, or
no if he doesn't.

On 1/4/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/3/24 16:31, olcott wrote:
>>
>> The question: Does the barber shave himself?
>> has no correct answer from [yes/no] so ZFC rejects the question.
>>
>
> Ridiculous. The correct answer is yes if the barber shaves himself, or
> no if he doesn't.
>

Ignoramus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

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

On 1/4/24 22:56, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/3/24 16:31, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> The question: Does the barber shave himself?
>>> has no correct answer from [yes/no] so ZFC rejects the question.
>>>
>>
>> Ridiculous. The correct answer is yes if the barber shaves himself, or
>> no if he doesn't.
>>
>
> Ignoramus.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>
Was Russell a barber?

On 1/4/24 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 2:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/3/24 16:31, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> The question: Does the barber shave himself?
>>> has no correct answer from [yes/no] so ZFC rejects the question.
>>>
>>
>> Ridiculous. The correct answer is yes if the barber shaves himself, or
>> no if he doesn't.
>>
>
> Ignoramus.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>

So, that doesn't make the question "Does the Barber Shave Himself?" an
improper question.

Your reference talks about the set definition of the set of people the
Barber shaves when the Barber shaves everyone that doesn't shave themselves.

It isn't the question this is illogical, but the set definition.

Just like you have admitted that you counter example is just a lie,
since you D isn't actually a program, but the proofs you falsely claim
to be following (Linz and Sipser) both have the input be the
representation of an ACTUAL PROGRAm.

And you have shown an utter lack of understanding about linguistics,
making mistakes like above, or claiming that sentences with a subjective
reference are just like other sentences which don't have such a reference

Or like how you claim that the "Correct Answer" to an objectiv answer
must ignore the objective facts (like the actual behavior of the machine
described) but instead should be based upon the unsound inferences of
the machine being asked.

This means that your logic agrees with the claims made by "MAGA" that
Trump won the 2020 election due to "rampant fraud".

On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>
> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>
>
You never answered my question.

"This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."

This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem solution.

So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?

On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>>
>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>
>>
> You never answered my question.
>
> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>
> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
> solution.
>
> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?

The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
inputs.

Does the Barber shave himself?
Rejected as an incorrect question.

Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to 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 1/6/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>>>
>>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
>>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>>
>>>
>> You never answered my question.
>>
>> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>>
>> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
>> solution.
>>
>> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?
>
> The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
> as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
> inputs.
>
> Does the Barber shave himself?
> Rejected as an incorrect question.
>
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
> Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to H.
>

In other words, you accept that the Termination Analyzer can not
correctly answer for ALL inputs, and thus the Halting Theorem is correct.

Note, you are showing your stupidity, as the question: "Does the Barber
shave himself?" is a correct question, as has been pointed out, either
he will or he won't.

The problem is that we can not possible find a Barber that meets the
earier condition, that of a Barber that shaves everyone who doesn't
shave themselves.

Thus, it isn't the Question of does he shave himself that is invalid, it
is the assumption that he meets the selection criteria.

In the same way, The question of the Directly Executed D(D) Halting,
always has a correct answer, it is the assumption that you can make an H
that gets the answer right for the D built on it.

That D is a perfectly VALID program to ask about, it just shows that the
problem is not computable.

So, you are just admitting that you are just an ignorant hypocritical
pathological lying idiot.

On 1/6/24 17:18, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>>>
>>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
>>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>>
>>>
>> You never answered my question.
>>
>> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>>
>> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
>> solution.
>>
>> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?
>
> The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
> as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
> inputs.
>
> Does the Barber shave himself?
> Rejected as an incorrect question.
>
> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
> Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to H.
>

If a termination analyzer rejects any input, it's not a termination
analyzer, so no termination analyzer exists.

On 1/6/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/6/24 17:18, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>>>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>>>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>>>>
>>>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
>>>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You never answered my question.
>>>
>>> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>>>
>>> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?
>>
>> The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
>> as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
>> inputs.
>>
>> Does the Barber shave himself?
>> Rejected as an incorrect question.
>>
>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>> Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to H.
>>
>
> If a termination analyzer rejects any input, it's not a termination
> analyzer, so no termination analyzer exists.

The domain of deciders does not include invalid inputs.

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

On 1/6/24 21:55, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 17:18, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>>>>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>>>>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting the
>>>>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You never answered my question.
>>>>
>>>> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>>>>
>>>> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?
>>>
>>> The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
>>> as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
>>> inputs.
>>>
>>> Does the Barber shave himself?
>>> Rejected as an incorrect question.
>>>
>>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>>> Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to H.
>>>
>>
>> If a termination analyzer rejects any input, it's not a termination
>> analyzer, so no termination analyzer exists.
>
> The domain of deciders does not include invalid inputs.
>
>
Invalid rebuttal.

On 1/6/2024 2:59 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/6/24 21:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/6/24 17:18, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>>>>>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>>>>>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such
>>>>>> barber.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as rejecting
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You never answered my question.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
>>>>> solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?
>>>>
>>>> The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
>>>> as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
>>>> inputs.
>>>>
>>>> Does the Barber shave himself?
>>>> Rejected as an incorrect question.
>>>>
>>>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>>>> Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If a termination analyzer rejects any input, it's not a termination
>>> analyzer, so no termination analyzer exists.
>>
>> The domain of deciders does not include invalid inputs.
>>
>>
> Invalid rebuttal.

What is the square root of an orange?

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

On 1/7/24 01:25, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 2:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 21:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 17:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>>>>>>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>>>>>>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such
>>>>>>> barber.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as
>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You never answered my question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?
>>>>>
>>>>> The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
>>>>> as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the Barber shave himself?
>>>>> Rejected as an incorrect question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>>>>> Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a termination analyzer rejects any input, it's not a termination
>>>> analyzer, so no termination analyzer exists.
>>>
>>> The domain of deciders does not include invalid inputs.
>>>
>>>
>> Invalid rebuttal.
>
> What is the square root of an orange?
>
Does D(D) halt?

On 1/6/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2024 2:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/6/24 21:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2024 2:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/24 17:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2024 9:46 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/3/24 06:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
>>>>>>> ZFC axiomatic set theory simply rejects that sets can be members of
>>>>>>> themselves. This is the same as simply saying there is no such
>>>>>>> barber.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the halting problem proofs this would be the same as
>>>>>>> rejecting the
>>>>>>> pathological input as semantically unsound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You never answered my question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This is the same as simply saying there is no such barber."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the same as simply saying there is no such halting problem
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree there is no such halting problem solution?
>>>>>
>>>>> The termination analyzer must reject the input that targets itself
>>>>> as invalid input thus permitting a termination analyzer for other
>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the Barber shave himself?
>>>>> Rejected as an incorrect question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the directly executed D(D) halt?
>>>>> Rejected as an incorrect question when posed to H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a termination analyzer rejects any input, it's not a termination
>>>> analyzer, so no termination analyzer exists.
>>>
>>> The domain of deciders does not include invalid inputs.
>>>
>>>
>> Invalid rebuttal.
>
> What is the square root of an orange?
>

Your admission of being Dishonest.