On 2/5/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 05.feb.2024 om 16:15 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/5/2024 8:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 15:28 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 2/5/2024 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 05:19 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression x is any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or ~x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are stipulated to be true thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing the semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich you just don't understand what they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to analytic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the fact that the EXISTANCE of a computabe True(L,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x), allows the proving of that an epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antinomy must say that such a thing can not exist doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate only deals with analytic expressions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else is out-of-scope. A truth predicate rejects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Truth Predicate needs to deal with ALL expressions in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language.
>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It must say they are not true, (and not false).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would also work, yet we construe not true and not false
>>>>>>>>>> as not truth bearer thus out-of-scope of a truth predicate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But they are answer of different predicates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We only need to Truth predicate and this must reject
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies. Neither Tarski nor Gödel
>>>>>>>> understood this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you don't understand what he is doing,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like a Halt Decider must handle all programs definable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not the same because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the self-contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the only H that "Correctly Simulates" its input
>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that never aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that correctly simulating N
>>>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>>>> <IS> a correct simulation of these N steps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But NOT a "Correct Simulation" that allows the use of a the
>>>>>>>>> simulation to replace the behavior of the machine described.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both Hehner and Stoddart agree that:
>>>>>>>> D does specify non terminating behavior to H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Maybe these are finally the right words*
>>>>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>>>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets call the H that aborts after N steps HaN.
>>>>> For each of these we can create a DaN based on this HaN.
>>>>
>>>> When H correctly reports on the behavior of every H that can
>>>> possibly exist we need no other H.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It *is* the case that a halt decider must compute
>>>>>> the mapping from the behavior that its finite string
>>>>>> specifies...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HaN(DaN,DaN) must judge in input, which contains HaN, which aborts
>>>>> after N steps and therefore DaN halts. It should not judge its
>>>>> non-input the DaM, which aborts after M steps. (With M ≠ N.) There
>>>>> is no N for which HaH gets a correct result for HaN(DaN,DaN).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>>
>>>
>>> Each of the DaN specify that it reaches the final state, so, if H
>>> aborts, there is no D that does not reach the final state.
>>>
>>>> As soon as H correctly determines that the above is
>>>> true in N steps of correct simulation then H correctly
>>>> aborts its simulated and rejects D as non-halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> None of the HaN correctly simulate DaN, because they all need to
>>
>> Of the infinite set of every H1...Hn that correctly simulates
>> 1 to ∞ steps of its corresponding D1...Dn none of these infinite
>> pairs ever reaches its own final state.
>
> That should be:
> Of the infinite set of every H1...Hn that simulates 1 to n steps, none
> simulates enough steps to see that D1 halts normally. So, they all abort
> too soon and return falsely an non-halting state.
>

On 5/02/24 19:21, olcott wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 16:15 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/5/2024 8:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> None of the HaN correctly simulate DaN, because they all need to
>>>
>>> Of the infinite set of every H1...Hn that correctly simulates
>>> 1 to ∞ steps of its corresponding D1...Dn none of these infinite
>>> pairs ever reaches its own final state.
>>
>> That should be:
>> Of the infinite set of every H1...Hn that simulates 1 to n steps, none
>> simulates enough steps to see that D1 halts normally. So, they all
>> abort too soon and return falsely an non-halting state.
>>
>
> According to your reasoning no one has any idea that
> Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop until they run
> it and wait until the end of time to find out that
> it never halts.
>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>   HERE: goto HERE;
> }

It is impossible for a simulating termination analyser to analyse
termination by any method other than simulation. If a termination
analyser uses something other than simulation, it is not as simulating
termination analyser.

On 5/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>
> *Maybe these are finally the right words*
> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.

It is impossible to simulate ∞ steps.

On 4/02/24 16:53, olcott wrote:
> An analytic expression x is any expression of language verified as
> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or ~x) is
> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other expressions
> of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing the semantic
> meaning of terms.

So you are a constructivist - you believe that proof by contradiction is
not valid.

>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only applies to analytic
> expressions

True(L,x) is STIPULATED to apply to every logical formula.

On 5/02/24 15:18, olcott wrote:

> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D *correctly* simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.

This doesn't make sense. You can't simulate ∞ steps.

> Innovation DOES CHANGE THINGS.
> No one ever thought of a simulating halt decider before.

Simulation was literally everyone's first thought when they thought
about how to make a halt decider. They thought some more, and realized
that it doesn't work and can't work.

> Everyone that thought of simulation rejected it as a basis.

Because it doesn't work.

>
> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D *correctly* simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>
This doesn't make sense. You can't simulate ∞ steps.

On 2/5/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 8:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 15:28 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/5/2024 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 05:19 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression x is any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or ~x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich you just don't understand what they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to analytic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the fact that the EXISTANCE of a computabe True(L, x),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows the proving of that an epistemological antinomy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must say that such a thing can not exist doesn't matter to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate only deals with analytic expressions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> else is out-of-scope. A truth predicate rejects expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Truth Predicate needs to deal with ALL expressions in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Language.
>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It must say they are not true, (and not false).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would also work, yet we construe not true and not false
>>>>>>>>> as not truth bearer thus out-of-scope of a truth predicate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But they are answer of different predicates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We only need to Truth predicate and this must reject
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies. Neither Tarski nor Gödel
>>>>>>> understood this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you don't understand what he is doing,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like a Halt Decider must handle all programs definable
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the system.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not the same because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> reach the self-contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, because the only H that "Correctly Simulates" its input is
>>>>>>>>>> the one that never aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that correctly simulating N
>>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>>> <IS> a correct simulation of these N steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But NOT a "Correct Simulation" that allows the use of a the
>>>>>>>> simulation to replace the behavior of the machine described.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both Hehner and Stoddart agree that:
>>>>>>> D does specify non terminating behavior to H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Maybe these are finally the right words*
>>>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>>>
>>>> Lets call the H that aborts after N steps HaN.
>>>> For each of these we can create a DaN based on this HaN.
>>>
>>> When H correctly reports on the behavior of every H that can
>>> possibly exist we need no other H.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It *is* the case that a halt decider must compute
>>>>> the mapping from the behavior that its finite string
>>>>> specifies...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HaN(DaN,DaN) must judge in input, which contains HaN, which aborts
>>>> after N steps and therefore DaN halts. It should not judge its
>>>> non-input the DaM, which aborts after M steps. (With M ≠ N.) There
>>>> is no N for which HaH gets a correct result for HaN(DaN,DaN).
>>>>
>>>
>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>
>>
>> Each of the DaN specify that it reaches the final state, so, if H
>> aborts, there is no D that does not reach the final state.
>>
>>> As soon as H correctly determines that the above is
>>> true in N steps of correct simulation then H correctly
>>> aborts its simulated and rejects D as non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> None of the HaN correctly simulate DaN, because they all need to
>
> Of the infinite set of every H1...Hn that correctly simulates
> 1 to ∞ steps of its corresponding D1...Dn none of these infinite
> pairs ever reaches its own final state.
>
> The specific H that correctly simulates N steps of D correctly
> determines that above is true (for the entire infinite set)
> thus providing it with the correct halt status criteria basis
> to reject D as non-halting.
>

On 2/5/24 9:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 05:19 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression x is any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich you just don't understand what they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only applies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to analytic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the fact that the EXISTANCE of a computabe True(L, x),
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows the proving of that an epistemological antinomy must
>>>>>>>>>>>> say that such a thing can not exist doesn't matter to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate only deals with analytic expressions,
>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>> else is out-of-scope. A truth predicate rejects expressions that
>>>>>>>>>>> are not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Truth Predicate needs to deal with ALL expressions in the
>>>>>>>>>> Language.
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It must say they are not true, (and not false).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would also work, yet we construe not true and not false
>>>>>>> as not truth bearer thus out-of-scope of a truth predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they are answer of different predicates.
>>>>>
>>>>> We only need to Truth predicate and this must reject
>>>>> epistemological antinomies. Neither Tarski nor Gödel
>>>>> understood this.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>
>>>> But you don't understand what he is doing,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just like a Halt Decider must handle all programs definable in
>>>>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>>>> This is not the same because D correctly simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach the self-contradiction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because the only H that "Correctly Simulates" its input is
>>>>>>>> the one that never aborts it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that correctly simulating N steps
>>>>>>> <IS> a correct simulation of these N steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But NOT a "Correct Simulation" that allows the use of a the
>>>>>> simulation to replace the behavior of the machine described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both Hehner and Stoddart agree that:
>>>>> D does specify non terminating behavior to H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Maybe these are finally the right words*
>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>
>> Lets call the H that aborts after N steps HaN.
>> For each of these we can create a DaN based on this HaN.
>
> When H correctly reports on the behavior of every H that can
> possibly exist we need no other H.

And when if incorrectly reports on the actual behavior of its input, it
is just wrong as a Halt decider.

You are just proving you have POOP on your brain.

>
>>>
>>> It *is* the case that a halt decider must compute
>>> the mapping from the behavior that its finite string
>>> specifies...
>>>
>>
>> HaN(DaN,DaN) must judge in input, which contains HaN, which aborts
>> after N steps and therefore DaN halts. It should not judge its
>> non-input the DaM, which aborts after M steps. (With M ≠ N.) There is
>> no N for which HaH gets a correct result for HaN(DaN,DaN).
>>
>
> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.

But once you fix the H to a given number of steps, then

>
> As soon as H correctly determines that the above is
> true in N steps of correct simulation then H correctly
> aborts its simulated and rejects D as non-halting.
>
>

So H is just a correct POOP decider, but not a Halt Decider, since a
Halt Decider needs to answer about the behavior of the specific input
given to it, and for any H that aborts this input and returns
non-halting, that input, which was based on THAT specific H, will halt
when run, and no H in your set every correctly simulated that specific
input (as the only one that was given it, incorrectly gave up too soon).

On 2/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 16:15 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/5/2024 8:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 15:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/5/2024 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 05.feb.2024 om 05:19 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression x is any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or ~x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are stipulated to be true thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing the semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich you just don't understand what they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to analytic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the fact that the EXISTANCE of a computabe True(L,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x), allows the proving of that an epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antinomy must say that such a thing can not exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate only deals with analytic expressions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else is out-of-scope. A truth predicate rejects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Truth Predicate needs to deal with ALL expressions in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It must say they are not true, (and not false).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would also work, yet we construe not true and not false
>>>>>>>>>>> as not truth bearer thus out-of-scope of a truth predicate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But they are answer of different predicates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We only need to Truth predicate and this must reject
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies. Neither Tarski nor Gödel
>>>>>>>>> understood this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you don't understand what he is doing,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like a Halt Decider must handle all programs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definable in the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not the same because D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the self-contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the only H that "Correctly Simulates" its input
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the one that never aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that correctly simulating
>>>>>>>>>>> N steps
>>>>>>>>>>> <IS> a correct simulation of these N steps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But NOT a "Correct Simulation" that allows the use of a the
>>>>>>>>>> simulation to replace the behavior of the machine described.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both Hehner and Stoddart agree that:
>>>>>>>>> D does specify non terminating behavior to H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Maybe these are finally the right words*
>>>>>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets call the H that aborts after N steps HaN.
>>>>>> For each of these we can create a DaN based on this HaN.
>>>>>
>>>>> When H correctly reports on the behavior of every H that can
>>>>> possibly exist we need no other H.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It *is* the case that a halt decider must compute
>>>>>>> the mapping from the behavior that its finite string
>>>>>>> specifies...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HaN(DaN,DaN) must judge in input, which contains HaN, which aborts
>>>>>> after N steps and therefore DaN halts. It should not judge its
>>>>>> non-input the DaM, which aborts after M steps. (With M ≠ N.) There
>>>>>> is no N for which HaH gets a correct result for HaN(DaN,DaN).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each of the DaN specify that it reaches the final state, so, if H
>>>> aborts, there is no D that does not reach the final state.
>>>>
>>>>> As soon as H correctly determines that the above is
>>>>> true in N steps of correct simulation then H correctly
>>>>> aborts its simulated and rejects D as non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None of the HaN correctly simulate DaN, because they all need to
>>>
>>> Of the infinite set of every H1...Hn that correctly simulates
>>> 1 to ∞ steps of its corresponding D1...Dn none of these infinite
>>> pairs ever reaches its own final state.
>>
>> That should be:
>> Of the infinite set of every H1...Hn that simulates 1 to n steps, none
>> simulates enough steps to see that D1 halts normally. So, they all
>> abort too soon and return falsely an non-halting state.
>>
>
> According to your reasoning no one has any idea that
> Infinite_Loop() is an infinite loop until they run
> it and wait until the end of time to find out that
> it never halts.
>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>   HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> As an actual fact H does correctly match correct never-halting
> criteria for ∞ steps of D correctly simulated by H.
>

On 2/5/24 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression x is any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich you just don't understand what they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only applies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to analytic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the fact that the EXISTANCE of a computabe True(L, x),
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows the proving of that an epistemological antinomy must
>>>>>>>>>>>> say that such a thing can not exist doesn't matter to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate only deals with analytic expressions,
>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>> else is out-of-scope. A truth predicate rejects expressions that
>>>>>>>>>>> are not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Truth Predicate needs to deal with ALL expressions in the
>>>>>>>>>> Language.
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It must say they are not true, (and not false).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would also work, yet we construe not true and not false
>>>>>>> as not truth bearer thus out-of-scope of a truth predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they are answer of different predicates.
>>>>>
>>>>> We only need to Truth predicate and this must reject
>>>>> epistemological antinomies. Neither Tarski nor Gödel
>>>>> understood this.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>
>>>> But you don't understand what he is doing,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tarski did not understand that non-truth bearers are
>>> out-of-scope of any truth predicate.
>>>
>>> *You understand these things better than he did*
>>>
>>
>> In other words, YOU don't understand what requirements mean.
>
> Since a Truth predicate is required to return True or False then
> non-truth-bearers are out-of-scope because they are neither true or
> false.
>
> True(L, "what time is it?") is ERROR-INVALID-INPUT
>

So, you don't understand what a predicate is.

True(L, x) needs to accept inputs that are True, and reject input that
are not.

You seem to be thinking of Truth(L, x) which returns the truth value of
the expression x.

Of course, you only get the difference if the language L has a statement
x as a member of it that doesn't have a truth value. Most Languages
don't admit nonsense as part of the language.

Tarski just shows that via the rules of Meta-systems, the existance of
the computable predicate True(L, x) in the system L, (with sufficiently
strong logic) allows the creation via a Meta-System a statement in L
that shows that breaks the system.

of course, this is all above your head, by your own admission.

On 2/5/24 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression x is any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich you just don't understand what they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only applies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to analytic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the fact that the EXISTANCE of a computabe True(L, x),
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows the proving of that an epistemological antinomy must
>>>>>>>>>>>> say that such a thing can not exist doesn't matter to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate only deals with analytic expressions,
>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>> else is out-of-scope. A truth predicate rejects expressions that
>>>>>>>>>>> are not analytic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Truth Predicate needs to deal with ALL expressions in the
>>>>>>>>>> Language.
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>> IT MUST REJECT epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It must say they are not true, (and not false).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would also work, yet we construe not true and not false
>>>>>>> as not truth bearer thus out-of-scope of a truth predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they are answer of different predicates.
>>>>>
>>>>> We only need to Truth predicate and this must reject
>>>>> epistemological antinomies. Neither Tarski nor Gödel
>>>>> understood this.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>> *That is the key essence of their huge mistake*
>>>>
>>>> But you don't understand what he is doing,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just like a Halt Decider must handle all programs definable in
>>>>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>>>> This is not the same because D correctly simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach the self-contradiction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because the only H that "Correctly Simulates" its input is
>>>>>>>> the one that never aborts it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that correctly simulating N steps
>>>>>>> <IS> a correct simulation of these N steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But NOT a "Correct Simulation" that allows the use of a the
>>>>>> simulation to replace the behavior of the machine described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both Hehner and Stoddart agree that:
>>>>> D does specify non terminating behavior to H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Maybe these are finally the right words*
>>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>>>
>>> It *is* the case that a halt decider must compute
>>> the mapping from the behavior that its finite string
>>> specifies...
>>>
>>
>> So, you are just agreeing that your H is just a POOP decider, not a
>> Halt Decider.
>>
>> If your criteria is not the actual Halting Question, your results
>> aren't a Halt Decider,
>>
>> For a Halt Decider, it must compute the mapping from the finite input
>> string to the behavior that string specifies, and that string
>> specifies a Compuation, and the FULL sequnece of states that running
>> it will generate, and we ask if the sequence has an end.
>>
>
> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D *correctly* simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.

That is the set { Dn } as each D built on a Difffert H is a different Input.

Each of those Dn, when correctly simulated for enough more steps, does Halt.

>
> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D *correctly* simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.

Proving you are just a three year old in temperment

>
> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D *correctly* simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.

Continuing that proof.

Repetition doesn't make it true. just shows you are desperate.

>
>> It is NOT about can H simulate that input to the end, but does it have
>> one.
>>
>> And, for this case, the input is built on a copy of the EXACT
>> computation that is deciding on it.
>>
>> You don't get to change the criteria to something that creates a
>> different map.
>>
>
> Innovation DOES CHANGE THINGS.
> No one ever thought of a simulating halt decider before.
> Everyone that thought of simulation rejected it as a basis.

In other words, you are admitting that you aren't actually working on
the Halting Problem, but just your POOP in PO-Computation Theory.

Maybe if you can show some VALUE in your POOP, you might convince people
it is useful. But since you don't actually build a POOP decider that can
decide on ALL inputs, just one particular one, it doesn't seem that
useful. (Yes, it can handle some others, but you admit it can't handle
all inputs).

>
>> You clearly don't understand the nature of requirements, and thus the
>> meaning of "Correct" or "True"
>
> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D *correctly* simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>

On 2/5/24 2:32 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 5/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>>
>> *Maybe these are finally the right words*
>> D specifies that N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated
>> by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D.
>
> It is impossible to simulate ∞ steps.

No, depending on your exact definitions, you can simulate an infinite
number of steps, just not in finite time, which means the simulator can
not be a decider.

A UTM given the description of a Non-Halting compuation will simulate it
for an infinite number of steps.

On 05/02/2024 10:16, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> In 1979 our lab got a PDP-11 computer. The engineer who installed the system gave us a copy of the
> game Eliza, probably a descendant of the famous Eliza. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA>
> It was a simple chat program with a limited set of responses, but clever enough to respond with
> sentences containing fragments from messages typed in on the keyboard. For some people so realistic,
> that they only wanted to chat with the program in private.
> But after some time, it was easily seen that it was not a human being at the other side. The many
> repetitions. The answers that sometimes did not touch the point of the message. The sudden return to
> an much earlier phase of the chat.
> When I see the discussion with olcott, I get the same feelings. The first impression is that there
> is a human being at the other side, but here again, after some time I see the same symptoms:

> Many
> repetitions;

PO can't handle abstract concepts or reasoning - he can't prove any points he tries to make, and
those points are arrived at simply as his early intuitions on first encountering a topic, i.e. they
are unfettered by subsequent learning or logical reasoning.

What /could/ such a person do, other than repeat his intuition over and over varying the words slightly.

> often the answer does not address the point of the message;

PO cannot grasp "the point of the message". Literally. He cannot properly handle the definitions
of terms used, or the logical reasoning employed, or understand /why/ a responder is following the
track they are following. He just sees disagreement with his claim, and perhaps a presentation of
some counter-claim [which to normal people might be read as a /proof/ or a /definition/ or a
/counter example/ etc.] I don't believe he sees any qualitative difference between his logical
repetitions of his own claims, and logical reasoning presented by others. He is completely blind to
the difference due to his different neural wiring.

Of course his responses couldn't address points he simply lacks the ability to understand.

> suddenly the discussion
> goes back to a point of which everybody thought it had been passed definitively already.

He does that, because he is just repeating what he thinks is correct claims (intuitions), and those
claims are still correct because nothing has changed (in his mind). Sometimes he changes the
wording, thinking if he does that enough, people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't mean he
agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!

If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he
can't leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting his core
intuition.

> So I come to the conclusion that someone is playing a game. He is using an AI and tries to see how
> long he can get responses. His game evidently has an AI somewhat better than that of Eliza. Once in
> a while it seems to be updated with a few new responses. When it looks as if the discussion is going
> to halt, it starts a new thread (sometimes in a new newsgroup). Maybe every now and then the maker
> of the game adds a few responses himself.

Well, your comparisson with Eliza is useful in /some/ ways! Eliza also lacked the ability to
process abstract concepts and definitions, and didn't genuinely understand what people were saying
to it, amd couldn't deduce what they were thinking etc.. PO's brain has some of Eliza's
limitations, so it's not too surprising his responses seem to follow Eliza's traits - but that
doesn't mean anyone is "playing a game". It's just the way PO's brain works...

As a humerous side-thought I did once suggest an alternative explanation:

msgid: <timdp5$i88$1@gioia.aioe.org>
[comp.theory; Re: A thought; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:38:29 +0100]

Mike.

On 2/10/2024 7:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 05/02/2024 10:16, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> In 1979 our lab got a PDP-11 computer. The engineer who installed the
>> system gave us a copy of the game Eliza, probably a descendant of the
>> famous Eliza. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA>
>> It was a simple chat program with a limited set of responses, but
>> clever enough to respond with sentences containing fragments from
>> messages typed in on the keyboard. For some people so realistic, that
>> they only wanted to chat with the program in private.
>> But after some time, it was easily seen that it was not a human being
>> at the other side. The many repetitions. The answers that sometimes
>> did not touch the point of the message. The sudden return to an much
>> earlier phase of the chat.
>> When I see the discussion with olcott, I get the same feelings. The
>> first impression is that there is a human being at the other side, but
>> here again, after some time I see the same symptoms:
>
>> Many repetitions;
>
> PO can't handle abstract concepts or reasoning - he can't prove any
> points he tries to make, and those points are arrived at simply as his
> early intuitions on first encountering a topic, i.e. they are unfettered
> by subsequent learning or logical reasoning.
>
> What /could/ such a person do, other than repeat his intuition over and
> over varying the words slightly.

*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*

*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340

*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.

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

On 11/02/24 03:14, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 7:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 05/02/2024 10:16, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> In 1979 our lab got a PDP-11 computer. The engineer who installed the
>>> system gave us a copy of the game Eliza, probably a descendant of the
>>> famous Eliza. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA>
>>> It was a simple chat program with a limited set of responses, but
>>> clever enough to respond with sentences containing fragments from
>>> messages typed in on the keyboard. For some people so realistic, that
>>> they only wanted to chat with the program in private.
>>> But after some time, it was easily seen that it was not a human being
>>> at the other side. The many repetitions. The answers that sometimes
>>> did not touch the point of the message. The sudden return to an much
>>> earlier phase of the chat.
>>> When I see the discussion with olcott, I get the same feelings. The
>>> first impression is that there is a human being at the other side,
>>> but here again, after some time I see the same symptoms:
>>
>>> Many repetitions;
>>
>> PO can't handle abstract concepts or reasoning - he can't prove any
>> points he tries to make, and those points are arrived at simply as his
>> early intuitions on first encountering a topic, i.e. they are
>> unfettered by subsequent learning or logical reasoning.
>>
>> What /could/ such a person do, other than repeat his intuition over
>> and over varying the words slightly.
>
> [more exact repetition of the stuff you posted before]

Thank you for proving that Mike is correct.

On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking
> if he does that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That
> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>
> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion) which
> he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since that might
> suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.  So he ignores
> the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just
> posting his core intuition.

I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to halt"
was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D) does halt
(evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.

Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>

"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does not
halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does not
halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"

Or something like that.

> As a humerous side-thought I did once suggest an alternative explanation:
>
>   msgid: <timdp5$i88$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>   [comp.theory;  Re: A thought;  Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:38:29 +0100]
>

I don't think I have any simple way to find this message, because
Thunderbird sucks.

On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough, people will suddenly agree with
>> him.  That doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>
>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he
>> can't leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some
>> argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting
>> his core intuition.
>
> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people
> were pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it does
> not halt.
>
> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>
> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does not halt, and if a computation
> only halts because it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it
> was correct!"
>
> Or something like that.

Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is worthless need look no further.
It's only someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...

>
>> As a humerous side-thought I did once suggest an alternative explanation:
>>
>>    msgid: <timdp5$i88$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>    [comp.theory;  Re: A thought;  Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:38:29 +0100]
>>
>
> I don't think I have any simple way to find this message, because Thunderbird sucks.

Yeah, I use SeaMonkey which is Thunderbird based I believe, and I don't see a "retrieve by msgid"
option anywhere. I can sort messages by date and turn of the threading tree, and locate the post by
date, so you could maybe do that but that's no good if your server retention doesn't go back far
enough. Even a simpler "retrieve parent article" button would be very useful and cover the majority
of actual use cases where I want to retrieve by msgid...

(Also some time ago I wrote my own console mode program that takes a server and msgid and dumps the
article to the console... That's how I personally do it.)

Anyhow: ============================================================================

On 18/10/2022 15:38, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 18/10/2022 09:21, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 05:04 schreef Richard Damon:
>>> On 10/17/22 10:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to not
>>>> replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply
>>>> just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
>>>> have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll insult
>>>> you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
>>>> sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
>>>> incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!
>>>>
>>>> He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
>>>> anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
>>>> the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
>>>> searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
>>>> see? If not, consider just saying nothing!
>>>>
>>>> Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in
>>>> new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
>>>> reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more easily
>>>> persuaded to join us.
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks
>>>> and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
>>>> who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
>>>> reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).
>>>>
>>>> There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
>>>> posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
>>>> preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own
>>>> words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
>>>> support for "just say nothing".
>>>>
>>>> So, anyone up for it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> My one concern is someone coming across his rantings and beleiving him.
>>>
>>> I suppose there is enough evidence that any sort of check will show the truth.
>>>
>>> I really do wonder if he does have an actual medical condition (other than his cancer he
>>> sometimes talks about) that impairs his brain function. It sounds like it goes back too far to be
>>> just a side effect of Chemo.
>>
>> Did you consider the possibility that he is not a real person, but an AI program? Same repetition
>> of words and sentences.
>
> I had an ironic thought a few months ago - PO has always claimed he wants to be the first to create
> a human mind in a computer [...as though he has the slightest clue what that would really
> involve...]. Well, it occured to me - what if many years ago, the real PO who actually /was/ an
> unacknowledged genius (kind-of) succeeded, but then died. His test subject had been his own mind,
> but he hadn't really got the whole process properly sorted, so the result was the PO we see today?
> Think I've been watching too many Rick and Morty episodes! :)
>
> Mike.

On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough,
>>> people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean he agrees his
>>> previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>
>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since
>>> that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.  So
>>> he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back
>>> to just posting his core intuition.
>>
>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to halt"
>> was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D) does halt
>> (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>
>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>
>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does not
>> halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does not
>> halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>
>> Or something like that.
>
> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
> worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants to
> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that
> will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...

*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*

*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340

*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/10/2024 7:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 05/02/2024 10:16, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> In 1979 our lab got a PDP-11 computer. The engineer who installed the
>> system gave us a copy of the game Eliza, probably a descendant of the
>> famous Eliza. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA>
>> It was a simple chat program with a limited set of responses, but
>> clever enough to respond with sentences containing fragments from
>> messages typed in on the keyboard. For some people so realistic, that
>> they only wanted to chat with the program in private.
>> But after some time, it was easily seen that it was not a human being
>> at the other side. The many repetitions. The answers that sometimes
>> did not touch the point of the message. The sudden return to an much
>> earlier phase of the chat.
>> When I see the discussion with olcott, I get the same feelings. The
>> first impression is that there is a human being at the other side, but
>> here again, after some time I see the same symptoms:
>
>> Many repetitions;
>
> PO can't handle abstract concepts or reasoning - he can't prove any
> points he tries to make, and those points are arrived at simply as his
> early intuitions on first encountering a topic, i.e. they are unfettered
> by subsequent learning or logical reasoning.
>
> What /could/ such a person do, other than repeat his intuition over and
> over varying the words slightly.
>
>> often the answer does not address the point of the message;
>
> PO cannot grasp "the point of the message".  Literally.  He cannot
> properly handle the definitions of terms used, or the logical reasoning
> employed, or understand /why/ a responder is following the track they
> are following.  He just sees disagreement with his claim, and perhaps a
> presentation of some counter-claim [which to normal people might be read
> as a /proof/ or a /definition/ or a /counter example/ etc.]  I don't
> believe he sees any qualitative difference between his logical
> repetitions of his own claims, and logical reasoning presented by
> others.  He is completely blind to the difference due to his different
> neural wiring.
>
> Of course his responses couldn't address points he simply lacks the
> ability to understand.
>
>> suddenly the discussion goes back to a point of which everybody
>> thought it had been passed definitively already.
>
> He does that, because he is just repeating what he thinks is correct
> claims (intuitions), and those claims are still correct because nothing
> has changed (in his mind).  Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking
> if he does that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That
> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!

*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*

*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340

*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?

This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.

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

On 2/4/2024 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> An analytic expression x is any expression of language verified as
> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or ~x) is
> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other expressions
> of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing the semantic
> meaning of terms.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only applies to analytic
> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because epistemological
> antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>
> It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar
> in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence
> x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
> with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>
>
> The proof of Tarski's undefinability theorem in this form is again
> by reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that an L-formula True(n)
>
> as above existed, i.e., if A is a sentence of arithmetic, then
> True(g(A)) holds in N if and only if A holds in N. Hence for all
>
> A, the formula True(g(A)) ⟺ A holds in N. But the diagonal
> lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence, by
>
> giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds
> in N. This is a contradiction QED.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>
>

In other words Tarski was simply too stupid to understand
that a correct and consistent truth predicate has a domain
of expressions of language that are truth bearers thus
non-truth-bearers such as the Liar Paradox must be rejected.

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

On 11/02/24 16:36, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough,
>>>> people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean he agrees
>>>> his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>
>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
>>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since
>>>> that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
>>>>  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes
>>>> back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>
>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to halt"
>>> was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D) does halt
>>> (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>
>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does not
>>> halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does not
>>> halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>
>>> Or something like that.
>>
>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
>> worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants to
>> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
>> that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>
> [a copy-paste of the same thing that is already proven to be stupid]

Thanks again for proving that Mike is correct.

On 11/02/24 18:00, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 7:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>
>> He does that, because he is just repeating what he thinks is correct
>> claims (intuitions), and those claims are still correct because
>> nothing has changed (in his mind).  Sometimes he changes the wording,
>> thinking if he does that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.
>> That doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>
> [a copy-paste of the same thing that was already proven to be stupid, with slight changes in wording]

Thank you for proving that Mike is correct.

On 2/11/24 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> An analytic expression x is any expression of language verified as
>> completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or ~x) is
>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to other expressions
>> of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing the semantic
>> meaning of terms.
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>> When we understand that a True(L, x) predicate only applies to analytic
>> expressions then Tarski's proof utterly fails because epistemological
>> antinomies are rejected as not analytic.
>>
>> It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar
>> in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence
>> x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
>> with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>
>>
>> The proof of Tarski's undefinability theorem in this form is again
>> by reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that an L-formula True(n)
>>
>> as above existed, i.e., if A is a sentence of arithmetic, then
>> True(g(A)) holds in N if and only if A holds in N. Hence for all
>>
>> A, the formula True(g(A)) ⟺ A holds in N. But the diagonal
>> lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence, by
>>
>> giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds
>> in N. This is a contradiction QED.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>>
>>
>
> In other words Tarski was simply too stupid to understand
> that a correct and consistent truth predicate has a domain
> of expressions of language that are truth bearers thus
> non-truth-bearers such as the Liar Paradox must be rejected.
>

Nope, you are too stupid to understand what Tarski is talking about.

Since you think "English" could be a formal logic system, this is a
proven statement.

On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough,
>>>> people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean he agrees
>>>> his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>
>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
>>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since
>>>> that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
>>>>  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes
>>>> back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>
>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to halt"
>>> was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D) does halt
>>> (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>
>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does not
>>> halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does not
>>> halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>
>>> Or something like that.
>>
>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
>> worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants to
>> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
>> that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>
>
> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
> *better than I have until now*
>
> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>
> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>
> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
> > PREMISES:
> > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> > was defined to be impossible.
> >
> > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> > …
> > CONCLUSION:
> > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
> >
> USENET Message-ID:
> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>
> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.

Nope.

Proven otherwise

Your statement are still just lies.

On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough,
>>>>> people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean he agrees
>>>>> his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>
>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
>>>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since
>>>>> that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
>>>>>  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes
>>>>> back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>
>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
>>>> halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D)
>>>> does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>
>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does
>>>> not halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does
>>>> not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was
>>>> correct!"
>>>>
>>>> Or something like that.
>>>
>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
>>> worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants to
>>> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
>>> that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>
>>
>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>> *better than I have until now*
>>
>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>
>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>
>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>  > PREMISES:
>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>  >
>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>  > …
>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>  >
>> USENET Message-ID:
>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>
>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
>
> Nope.
>
> Proven otherwise
>
> Your statement are still just lies.

That is libelous.

*to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie

That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth

*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*

That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
that you cannot even show that my statement is false.

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

On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough,
>>>>>> people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean he agrees
>>>>>> his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
>>>>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since
>>>>>> that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
>>>>>>  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and
>>>>>> goes back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
>>>>> halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D)
>>>>> does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it
>>>>> does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>
>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does
>>>>> not halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does
>>>>> not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was
>>>>> correct!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
>>>> worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants to
>>>> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
>>>> that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>
>>>
>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>
>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>
>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>
>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>> sci.logic
>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>  >
>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>>  > …
>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>  >
>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>
>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Proven otherwise
>>
>> Your statement are still just lies.
>
> That is libelous.

No, it is a TRUE statement.

>
> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie

Which perfectly describes yourself.

>
> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
> shows a reckless disregard for the truth

Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.

>
> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>
> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>
>

The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting Problem,
but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual requirements of
the halting problem.

Your H is not A COMPUTATION.

your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.

Thus, your claims are all LIES.