On 2/22/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>
>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *YES*
>>>
>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>
>> Nice to see that you agree.
>>
>
> The halting problem cannot be solved (we agree).
>
> The reason why the halting problem cannot be solved is
> that there is something wrong with it. (you fail to understand)
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>
> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>
> This is because the question:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>
>
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>

There is NOTHING "wrong" with the Halting problem that accepting that
there are just some things that computations can not do.

What is WRONG, is YOU, who refuses to accept the proven truth of that
fact, just like all the people who deny global warming.

The only difference is that global warming is demonstrated by just
experimental data, which can be argued with, while the limits of
computation are mathematically PROVEN, so, you are just proven wrong to
reject it.

On 22/02/24 20:38, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This places
>>>>>> a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America in
>>>>> dollars and cents?"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>
>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>
>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>
>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be
>> built.
>
> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>
> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>
> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
> ocean.

Correct. These are actual limits.

On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>
>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>
>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>
>> This is because the question:
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>
>>
>
> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing question.
>
> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input Halt
> when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one of that infinite
> set of machines

This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite! Maybe
Olcott can show us one that isn't.

On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This
>>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>>> in dollars and cents?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>
>>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>>
>>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be
>>> built.
>>
>> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>>
>> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>>
>> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
>> ocean.
>>
>
> And computations are limited in that no compuation can always tell if
> the computation descirbed by its input will halt.

That specifications are defined to be unsatisfiable makes these
specifications incorrect.

That you cannot answer:
What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America in
dollars and cents?

Does not make you stupid.

epistemological antinomies must be rejected as invalid input.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 12:24 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agreed with your agreement with my Liar Paradox question.
>>>>>> That you do not understand that this Liar Paradox question
>>>>>> <is> isomorphic to this question for Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> is not any rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that Ȟ isn't a Decider, so it isn't asked any question.
>>>>
>>>> Your weasel words and double-talk are helping to kill the whole
>>>> planet. If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not
>>>> get away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> YOU are the one spreading lies.
>>>
>>> If you think Truth actually is computable, why don't you spend your
>>> time working on that computation?
>>
>> Once self-contradictory expressions are rejected as not truth bearers
>> then truth can be computed.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> But then, you have shown that you are too stupid to understand this.
>
> After all, you think the use of Strawmen is a valid form of arguent.
>
> Remember, the ACTUAL Halting Question is TOTALLY not self-contradictory,
> only your Strawman rewrite, which is based on lies.
>

Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
(a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
(b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
(c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
(d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
(e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.

> For every input that actually represents and Computation, there IS a
> correct answer, and thus is not "self-contradictory"
>

That is the same as the assumption that all expressions of language
are true or false by pretending that questions and epistemological
antinomies do not exist.

> Only by altering the input to no longer be a description of an actual
> Computation, but to be of a "Template", ad the decider to not be a
> computation either, but a "Set" of Machines, do you get your
> self-contradictory version of the POOPing Question.
>

The halting problem is intentionally defined with an unsatisfiable
specification. All problems that were intentionally defined to be
unsatisfiable are isomorphic to each other.

What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America in
dollars and cents?
is isomorphic to

Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
is isomorphic to

Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

> You have already ADMITTED to this LIE, so your argument can be rejected
> on that basis.
>
> You are just proving that you are just too ignorant of all of this
> material to understand the nearly uncountable errors you have made, over
> and over, which also shows that you have made yourself an unteachable
> idiot.

All of the above is mere rhetoric designed to convince gullible fools
yet utterly bereft of any actual supporting reasoning.

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

On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>> and you know that I have proven this yet don't give a rat's
>>>> ass for the truth even if this truth about truth itself is
>>>> the only thing that can save the Earth from death by climate
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> If truth was computable (and it is) then Liars could not get
>>>> away with lies that would otherwise kill the whole planet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. YOu are just proving your ignorance.
>>>
>>> You haven't actually proven anything of import, except your own
>>> ignorance.
>>>
>>> I don't think you actually understand how to actually prove
>>> something, only attempt to make philosphical arguments about things
>>> (with out actually understanding what you are talking about).
>>>
>>> Most lies are fairly easy to prove to be lies, as your lies have been.
>>>
>>
>> The hired liars of the fossil fuel company are getting away with their
>> lies because they are very well funded and most people simply are not
>> bright enough to tell the difference.
>
> And you are stupider then them to think that they would suddenly realize
> what is truth because some "program" told them that.
>

Such a program could relentlessly explain the truth every which way
at every language level and do this so completely that the Liars
would look like fools even to themselves.

This remains impossible all of the time that people remain unaware
of the Ruse of Tarski Undefinability.

> As you have proven, idiots will beleive what they want to beleive, and
> showing them what is true won't change their mine.
>
>>
>>> You can choose to ignore the proof and continue to beleive your own
>>> lies, but you mostly only hurt yourself, and maybe a few dumb people
>>> who you might persude with your lies.
>>>
>>
>> Although you admitted that the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false
>> you continue to dodge this question:
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>
> I don'y dodge it, because, as you admit, it doesn't have an answer.
>
>>
>> The above is an incorrect self-contradictory question that
>> was intentionally defined to have no correct answer.
>>
>> You deceptively ignore this because you know it proves my point.
>
> No, I KNOW that point, but you then LIE that other questions, that HAVE
> answers are the same as it.
>

Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?

On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>
>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>
>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>
>> This is because the question:
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>
>>
>
> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing question.
>
> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input Halt
> when run?"

This is the (c) level of specificity that is followed by
the (d) and (e) levels of increasing specificity.

Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
(a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
(b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
(c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
(d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
(e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.

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

On 2/22/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-21 15:14:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to demonstrate
>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *YES*
>>>>
>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>
>>> Nice to see that you agree.
>>>
>>
>> The halting problem cannot be solved (we agree).
>>
>> The reason why the halting problem cannot be solved is
>> that there is something wrong with it. (you fail to understand)
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>
>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>
>> This is because the question:
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>
>
> There is NOTHING "wrong" with the Halting problem that accepting that
> there are just some things that computations can not do.
>

When-so-ever a specification is defined to be unsatisfiable
this specification does ask an incorrect question.

An incorrect question is defined as any question such that
no correct answer can possibly exist.

Example: What is the square-root of an actual Banana?

> What is WRONG, is YOU, who refuses to accept the proven truth of that
> fact, just like all the people who deny global warming.
>
> The only difference is that global warming is demonstrated by just
> experimental data, which can be argued with, while the limits of
> computation are mathematically PROVEN, so, you are just proven wrong to
> reject it.

The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
no actual limit on anyone or anything, otherwise the above
question proves that you are stupid. You are not stupid.

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

On 2/23/2024 4:54 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 22/02/24 20:38, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This
>>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>>> in dollars and cents?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>
>>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>>
>>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be
>>> built.
>>
>> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>>
>> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>>
>> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
>> ocean.
>
> Correct. These are actual limits.
>

In other words because you cannot tell me the
square-root of an actual banana you must be stupid.

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

On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will only
>>>>>> give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>
>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>
>>> This is because the question:
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing question.
>>
>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input
>> Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one of that
>> infinite set of machines
>
> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite! Maybe
> Olcott can show us one that isn't.

Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
(a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
(b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
(c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
(d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
(e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?

That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.

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

On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>
> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>
> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.

That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or (d) have
a correct answer is dishonest.

>
>> For every input that actually represents and Computation, there IS a
>> correct answer, and thus is not "self-contradictory"
>>
>
> That is the same as the assumption that all expressions of language
> are true or false by pretending that questions and epistemological
> antinomies do not exist.

No, wrong. That is the same as the assumption that all Turing
machine/input pairs - including halt deciders when asked about
themselves - either halt or do not halt. That is the same as the
assumption that all sequences are finite or infinite. You have not been
able to show me a sequence that is neither finite nor infinite.

>
>> Only by altering the input to no longer be a description of an actual
>> Computation, but to be of a "Template", ad the decider to not be a
>> computation either, but a "Set" of Machines, do you get your
>> self-contradictory version of the POOPing Question.
>>
>
> The halting problem is intentionally defined with an unsatisfiable
> specification.

No, wrong. Turing defined the problem first, and then he discovered it
was unsatisfiable.

Do not dishonestly ignore any part of this reply.

On 23/02/24 17:26, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 4:54 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 22/02/24 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This
>>>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>>>> in dollars and cents?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents. This
>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can be
>>>> built.
>>>
>>> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>>>
>>> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>>>
>>> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to the
>>> ocean.
>>
>> Correct. These are actual limits.
>>
>
> In other words because you cannot tell me the
> square-root of an actual banana you must be stupid.
>

Nobody said "stupid".

Because I cannot tell you the square-root of an actual banana, that is
an actual limit of my mathematical abilities. I don't have the ability
to tell you the square-root of an actual banana.

On 23/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will
>>>>>>> only give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering" the
>>>>>>> same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original H,
>>>>>>> and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>
>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>
>>>> This is because the question:
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing question.
>>>
>>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input
>>> Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one of that
>>> infinite set of machines
>>
>> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite!
>> Maybe Olcott can show us one that isn't.
>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>
> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
> (a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
> (b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
> (c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
> (d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>
> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>
>
That you will not acknowledge that ALL questions of type (c) and (d)
have correct answers is dishonest.

On 23/02/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
> no actual limit on anyone or anything, otherwise the above
> question proves that you are stupid. You are not stupid.

Actual limit on me: I cannot tell you the square root of a banana.

Actual limit on you: You cannot jump 3 stories high.

Actual limit on Turing machines: they cannot tell the halt status of
every Turing machine.

Incorrect question: Bob is a colorless green idea. Does Bob sleep furiously?

Correct question: Does Bob sleep furiously?

Correct question: Does there exist a colorless green idea which sleeps
furiously?

Correct question: Does this <points at a banana> sleep furiously?

Incorrect question: Does a halt decider return 1 when given itself as input?

Correct question: Does this program <source code here> return 1 when
given itself as input?

On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>
>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>
>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>
> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or (d) have
> a correct answer is dishonest.

When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.

When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
to the behavior of Ȟ then we become dishonest when we try to change
the subject away from this as a rebuttal.

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

On 2/23/2024 12:42 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 17:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 4:54 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 22/02/24 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This
>>>>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of America
>>>>>>>> in dollars and cents?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents.
>>>>>>> This places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>>>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>>>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can
>>>>> be built.
>>>>
>>>> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>>>>
>>>> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>>>>
>>>> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to
>>>> the ocean.
>>>
>>> Correct. These are actual limits.
>>>
>>
>> In other words because you cannot tell me the
>> square-root of an actual banana you must be stupid.
>>
>
> Nobody said "stupid".
>
> Because I cannot tell you the square-root of an actual banana, that is
> an actual limit of my mathematical abilities.

You know that is a lie. A type mismatch error cannot be
construed as any limit of abilities. Not only is it a
lie it is a stupid lie.

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

On 2/23/2024 12:43 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will
>>>>>>>> only give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering"
>>>>>>>> the same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original
>>>>>>>> H, and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is because the question:
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing question.
>>>>
>>>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input
>>>> Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one of that
>>>> infinite set of machines
>>>
>>> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite!
>>> Maybe Olcott can show us one that isn't.
>>
>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>
>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>> (a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
>> (b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>> (c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
>> (d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>
>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>
>>
> That you will not acknowledge that ALL questions of type (c) and (d)
> have correct answers is dishonest.

That you insist on ignoring the context of who is asked is dishonest.
That (a) through (e) are stipulated to refer to the same thing proves
that the context of who is asked CANNOT BE IGNORED.

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

On 2/23/2024 1:00 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>> no actual limit on anyone or anything, otherwise the above
>> question proves that you are stupid. You are not stupid.
>
> Actual limit on me: I cannot tell you the square root of a banana.
>

It is stupidly dishonest to say that a type mismatch error
places any actual limit on anyone or anything.

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

On 23/02/24 20:45, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 12:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 17:26, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 4:54 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/24 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 1:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/02/24 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 4:10 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/02/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 11:28 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences true or false. This
>>>>>>>>>> places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Quoted below from by 2004 post*
>>>>>>>>> "What are the colors of the flag of the United States of
>>>>>>>>> America in dollars and cents?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have proven that it is impossible to build a machine that
>>>>>>>> correctly answers all English sentences in dollars and cents.
>>>>>>>> This places a limit on what can be built.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is impossible for anyone or anything to correct answer incorrect
>>>>>>> questions thus placing all of the blame and fault on the question
>>>>>>> and no one or nothing else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody cares whose fault it is that a limit is placed on what can
>>>>>> be built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Engineering is limited in that it can make a square circle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pizzas are limited in that they cannot build office buildings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Donuts are limited in that they cannot restore complete health to
>>>>> the ocean.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. These are actual limits.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words because you cannot tell me the
>>> square-root of an actual banana you must be stupid.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody said "stupid".
>>
>> Because I cannot tell you the square-root of an actual banana, that is
>> an actual limit of my mathematical abilities.
>
> You know that is a lie. A type mismatch error cannot be
> construed as any limit of abilities. Not only is it a
> lie it is a stupid lie.

A type mismatch error limits everyone's ability to add an integer and a
cheeseburger.

On 23/02/24 20:50, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 1:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 17:25, olcott wrote:
>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>> no actual limit on anyone or anything, otherwise the above
>>> question proves that you are stupid. You are not stupid.
>>
>> Actual limit on me: I cannot tell you the square root of a banana.
>
> It is stupidly dishonest to say that a type mismatch error
> places any actual limit on anyone or anything.
>

Then what is the square root of a banana?

Nothing limits you from knowing the answer, so you can know the answer.
Nothing limits you from telling me, so you can tell me.
So please tell me. I would like to know.

>> Actual limit on you: You cannot jump 3 stories high.
>>
>> Actual limit on Turing machines: they cannot tell the halt status of
every Turing machine.
>>
>> Incorrect question: Bob is a colorless green idea. Does Bob sleep
furiously?
>>
>> Correct question: Does Bob sleep furiously?
>>
>> Correct question: Does there exist a colorless green idea which
sleeps furiously?
>>
>> Correct question: Does this <points at a banana> sleep furiously?
>>
>> Incorrect question: Does a halt decider return 1 when given itself
as input?
>>
>> Correct question: Does this program <source code here> return 1 when
given itself as input?

On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>
>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>
>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>
>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or (d)
>> have a correct answer is dishonest.
>
> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.

2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of who is
asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a correct answer.

Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of (c) or
(d) specifies a sequence.

> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
> to the behavior of Ȟ

Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.

> then we become dishonest when we try to change
> the subject away from this as a rebuttal.

What?

On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>
>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>
>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>
>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or (d)
>>> have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>
>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>
> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of who is
> asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a correct answer.
>
> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of (c) or
> (d) specifies a sequence.
>
>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>
> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.

You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to acknowledge)
that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.

>
>> then we become dishonest when we try to change
>> the subject away from this as a rebuttal.
>
> What?
>

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

On 23/02/24 20:49, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 12:43 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really means:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will
>>>>>>>>> only give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering"
>>>>>>>>> the same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original
>>>>>>>>> H, and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>>>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is because the question:
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing question.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input
>>>>> Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one of that
>>>>> infinite set of machines
>>>>
>>>> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite!
>>>> Maybe Olcott can show us one that isn't.
>>>
>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>
>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>> (a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
>>> (b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>> (c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
>>> (d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>
>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>
>>>
>> That you will not acknowledge that ALL questions of type (c) and (d)
>> have correct answers is dishonest.
>
> That you insist on ignoring the context of who is asked is dishonest.
> That (a) through (e) are stipulated to refer to the same thing proves
> that the context of who is asked CANNOT BE IGNORED.
>

That (c) and (d) have correct answers proves that (a) through (e) have
correct answers because they are stipulated to refer to the same thing.

On 2/23/2024 4:38 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/02/24 20:49, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 12:43 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/02/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 7:27 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/24 03:33, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 14:24:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 7:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-20 01:02:42 +0000, polcot2 said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- M applied to w
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Does M halt on w?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy // M applied to w halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn // M applied to w does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // --- Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correctly transitions to H.qy*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we simply append an infinite loop to the above H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this transforms the above H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a self-contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can think that you can convert something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sellf-contradictory quesstion proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong at all, on the contrary, a good example to
>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>> what "conversion to aself contradictory questiion" really
>>>>>>>>>>>> means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is true." Is not self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is NOT true." Is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is NOT true." ?
>>>>>>>>>>> *Both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Linz Turing machine H --- H applied to ⟨H⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy    // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn   // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>> *YES*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we append an infinite loop to the H.qy state we derive Ȟ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>>>>> *Both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since H needs to be a DEFINED machine, and thus it will
>>>>>>>>>> only give ONE of the two answers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking
>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, when you change H to Ȟ then it is no longer "answering"
>>>>>>>>>> the same question, so your descriptiom is no longer correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, we don't have Ȟ being asked the question, but the original
>>>>>>>>>> H, and the question is no longer about "itself".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your whole argument is just based on a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The halting problem itself is anchored in the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is just a problem. One way to solve it exploits
>>>>>>>> the liar paradox but there are other ways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of implementations of Ȟ none of them
>>>>>>> derives an answer consistent with the behavior of Ȟ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is because the question:
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>>> is self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Ȟ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but that isn't the Halting question, but your POOPing
>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Question, "Does the computation described by the input
>>>>>> Halt when run?", DOES have a correct answer for every one of that
>>>>>> infinite set of machines
>>>>>
>>>>> This is only true if every sequence is either finite or infinite!
>>>>> Maybe Olcott can show us one that isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn     // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>
>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked: Something about some input
>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked: Something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked: Does your input halt?
>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked: Does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt ?
>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>
>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That you will not acknowledge that ALL questions of type (c) and (d)
>>> have correct answers is dishonest.
>>
>> That you insist on ignoring the context of who is asked is dishonest.
>> That (a) through (e) are stipulated to refer to the same thing proves
>> that the context of who is asked CANNOT BE IGNORED.
>>
>
> That (c) and (d) have correct answers proves that (a) through (e) have
> correct answers because they are stipulated to refer to the same thing.

On 23/02/24 22:52, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 3:45 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/02/24 20:43, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 12:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/24 17:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can phrase the above question at multiple levels of specificity.
>>>>> (a) Ȟ is asked something about some input
>>>>> (b) Ȟ is asked something about ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>>>> (c) Ȟ is asked does your input halt
>>>>> (d) Ȟ is asked does ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ halt
>>>>> (e) Ȟ is asked: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description ?
>>>>>
>>>>> That you will not acknowledge that (a) through (e) are all correct
>>>>> and are at increasing levels of specificity is dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> That you will not acknowledge that all questions of type (c) or (d)
>>>> have a correct answer is dishonest.
>>>
>>> When we simply ignore the context of who is asked then
>>> in our ignorance it seems like (c) or (d) has a correct answer.
>>
>> 2+2 doesn't have a different answer depending on the context of who is
>> asked. (c) and (d) have correct answers like 2+2 has a correct answer.
>>
>> Every sequence is either finite or infinite. Every question of (c) or
>> (d) specifies a sequence.
>>
>>> When we understand that every implementation of Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩
>>> that can possibly exist cannot transition to a state corresponding
>>> to the behavior of Ȟ
>>
>> Correct! I thought you'd never realize that.
>
> You remain too stupid to understand (or too dishonest to acknowledge)
> that self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically invalid.
>

You remain too stupid to understand that inputs which meet the criteria
of being valid inputs must be accepted as valid.