This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis.

E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

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>

*Direct Link to original message*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+

An incorrect YES/NO (thus polar) question is defined as any
YES/NO question where both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
Correctly answering incorrect questions is logically impossible.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf

Because for every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can
possibly exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to
this question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts on its input?

This exactly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
question for this decider/input pair: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

It is generally the case that the inability to do the
logically impossible places no actual limit on anything
or anyone otherwise CAD systems that cannot correctly
draw square circles would be another limit to computation.

The common fake rebuttal to this claim is to use the
strawman deception to switch to some other decider/input
pair besides Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to deceptively try to show that
the question is not incorrect on the basis of some other
different question.

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

On 3/12/24 7:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
> Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis.
>
> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
> 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>
>
> *Direct Link to original message*
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>
> An incorrect YES/NO (thus polar) question is defined as any
> YES/NO question where both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
> Correctly answering incorrect questions is logically impossible.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>
> Because for every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can
> possibly exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to
> this question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts on its input?
>
> This exactly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
> question for this decider/input pair: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> It is generally the case that the inability to do the
> logically impossible places no actual limit on anything
> or anyone otherwise CAD systems that cannot correctly
> draw square circles would be another limit to computation.
>
> The common fake rebuttal to this claim is to use the
> strawman deception to switch to some other decider/input
> pair besides Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to deceptively try to show that
> the question is not incorrect on the basis of some other
> different question.
>
>
>

Intentional LIE and fabrication.

It has been explained why this is wrong, and your ignoring that says you
KNOW you are lying.

For EVERY implementation of H^.H, we have a DEFINED implementaion of H
and H^ and thus defined behaviors for both of them

This seems to be a core point that you refuse to see. If you have a
program, you have defined what EXACTLY that program will do. To deny
that means you don't understand a THING about how programs and computers
work.

Since we have H and H^, we can know what H (H^) (H^) and H^.H (H^) (H^)
will do.

To deny that is to deny the FACT that programs are defined to be
deterministic, which make you a blantant liar.

Since we know what these will do, we can divide our whole universe into
4 cases.

Case 1: H and H^.H (H^) (H^) goes to qn, the case you are normally claiming.

IF H^.H (H^) (H^) goes to qn, that means that H says this input does not
halt, but H^ just reached its final state and halts.

So, the CORRECT answer for this instance of H and H^ is Halting (qy)
which is not what H / H^.H did

Case 2: H and H^.H (H^) (H^) goes to qy

IF H^.H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, that means that H says this input does
halt, but H^ just reached the state that enters an infinite loop, so H^
will not halt

So, the CORRECT answer for this instance of H and H^ is NOT HALTING
(qn), which is not what H / H^.H did

Case 3: H and H^.H (H^) (H^) may just get caught in an infinite loop and
not answer.

In this case, H proves itself to not be a decider of any type, as a
decider must always answer. This will be the results you get though if H
is designed to wait until it actually knows the answer, as each level of
simulation just keeps running to see what will happen later in the
program it is simulating.

The correct answer in this case is Non-Halting (qn)

Case 4: H and H^.H (H^) (H^) might stop in someother state.

In this case H has just proven that it failed to meet its specification,
as it was specified to only finish in qy or qn, and thus it failed to
meet its specification and isn't a correct Halt Decider.

The correct answer in this case is Halting (qy)

As has been brought up in the past, perhaps an admitted variation to the
Halting Question can be defined, which an "I can't tell" case, that
would make this answer valid, but that then requires showing that this
alternate variation (that admits it doesn' solve the original problem)
is actually useful for something, and that requires coming up with a
good criteria that needs to be meet to prevent a decider from just using
that answer all the time.

So, we have shown that for ALL POSSIBLE INSTANCE of the H / H^ pair
there IS a CORRECT ANSWER (just not the one that H gives), so the
question is NOT invalid.

The fact that NONE of the infinite set of possible deciders gives the
right answer to some input (the H^ built on it) shows that the problem
is uncomputable.

If you repeat this argument again, with out including an ACTUAL
REBUTTAL, and not just LYING and caling it a strawman, I will streach my
mind to figure out how many ways I can show how stupid you are showing
yourself to be and how much of an utter liar you are

On 3/12/2024 10:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 7:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>> Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis.
>>
>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> *Direct Link to original message*
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>>
>> An incorrect YES/NO (thus polar) question is defined as any
>> YES/NO question where both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>> Correctly answering incorrect questions is logically impossible.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>
>> Because for every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can
>> possibly exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to
>> this question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts on its input?
>>
>> This exactly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
>> question for this decider/input pair: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>
>> It is generally the case that the inability to do the
>> logically impossible places no actual limit on anything
>> or anyone otherwise CAD systems that cannot correctly
>> draw square circles would be another limit to computation.
>>
>> The common fake rebuttal to this claim is to use the
>> strawman deception to switch to some other decider/input
>> pair besides Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to deceptively try to show that
>> the question is not incorrect on the basis of some other
>> different question.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Intentional LIE and fabrication.
>
> It has been explained why this is wrong, and your ignoring that says you
> KNOW you are lying.
>

*I am telling the truth*
*I am telling the truth*
*I am telling the truth*

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

In all of the H/TMD cases above where
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
are the wrong answer.

It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.

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

On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>
> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>
> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
> are the wrong answer.

So when I ask this Turing machine:
states={qy,qn}
start_state={qn}

whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual behaviour
is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong answer, according to
you?

> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.

Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole
rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.

On 3/12/2024 11:50 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/03/24 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>
>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>
>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>> are the wrong answer.
>
> So when I ask this Turing machine:
> states={qy,qn}
> start_state={qn}
>
> whether it halts, the predicted behaviour is no but the actual behaviour
> is yes, so that means both YES and NO are the wrong answer, according to
> you?
>

I can't understand what you mean.

>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>
> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole
> rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.

YES or NO is only the right answer to a different decider/input
question, thus a rebuttal anchored in the strawman deception.

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

On 3/12/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 10:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 7:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>>> Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis.
>>>
>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>> 20 December 2017
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>> *Direct Link to original message*
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>>>
>>> An incorrect YES/NO (thus polar) question is defined as any
>>> YES/NO question where both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>> Correctly answering incorrect questions is logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>
>>> Because for every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can
>>> possibly exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to
>>> this question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts on its input?
>>>
>>> This exactly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
>>> question for this decider/input pair: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>
>>> It is generally the case that the inability to do the
>>> logically impossible places no actual limit on anything
>>> or anyone otherwise CAD systems that cannot correctly
>>> draw square circles would be another limit to computation.
>>>
>>> The common fake rebuttal to this claim is to use the
>>> strawman deception to switch to some other decider/input
>>> pair besides Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to deceptively try to show that
>>> the question is not incorrect on the basis of some other
>>> different question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Intentional LIE and fabrication.
>>
>> It has been explained why this is wrong, and your ignoring that says
>> you KNOW you are lying.
>>
>
> *I am telling the truth*
> *I am telling the truth*
> *I am telling the truth*

Nope, proven otherwise.

>
> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>
> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
> are the wrong answer.
>
> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>

Nope, as explained for EACH H, and thus H^, there is a right answer.

H just doesn't give it.

Thus, you LIE when you claim there is no correct answer, proving that
you are an ignorant idiot and a pathological liar.

On 3/12/2024 1:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/12/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2024 10:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/12/24 7:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>>>> Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis.
>>>>
>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>>> 20 December 2017
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>> *Direct Link to original message*
>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>>>>
>>>> An incorrect YES/NO (thus polar) question is defined as any
>>>> YES/NO question where both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>> Correctly answering incorrect questions is logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Because for every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can
>>>> possibly exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to
>>>> this question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts on its input?
>>>>
>>>> This exactly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
>>>> question for this decider/input pair: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>
>>>> It is generally the case that the inability to do the
>>>> logically impossible places no actual limit on anything
>>>> or anyone otherwise CAD systems that cannot correctly
>>>> draw square circles would be another limit to computation.
>>>>
>>>> The common fake rebuttal to this claim is to use the
>>>> strawman deception to switch to some other decider/input
>>>> pair besides Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to deceptively try to show that
>>>> the question is not incorrect on the basis of some other
>>>> different question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Intentional LIE and fabrication.
>>>
>>> It has been explained why this is wrong, and your ignoring that says
>>> you KNOW you are lying.
>>>
>>
>> *I am telling the truth*
>> *I am telling the truth*
>> *I am telling the truth*
>
> Nope, proven otherwise.
>
>>
>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>
>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>> are the wrong answer.
>>
>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>
>
> Nope, as explained for EACH H, and thus H^, there is a right answer.
You aren't even saying that correctly.

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions |
(H TMD ⊢* H.qy != Actual_Behavior(TMD)) ∧
(H TMD ⊢* H.qn != Actual_Behavior(TMD))

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

On 3/12/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 1:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2024 10:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/24 7:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>>>>> Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>>>> 20 December 2017
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Direct Link to original message*
>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>>>>>
>>>>> An incorrect YES/NO (thus polar) question is defined as any
>>>>> YES/NO question where both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>> Correctly answering incorrect questions is logically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Because for every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can
>>>>> possibly exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to
>>>>> this question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts on its input?
>>>>>
>>>>> This exactly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
>>>>> question for this decider/input pair: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> It is generally the case that the inability to do the
>>>>> logically impossible places no actual limit on anything
>>>>> or anyone otherwise CAD systems that cannot correctly
>>>>> draw square circles would be another limit to computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The common fake rebuttal to this claim is to use the
>>>>> strawman deception to switch to some other decider/input
>>>>> pair besides Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to deceptively try to show that
>>>>> the question is not incorrect on the basis of some other
>>>>> different question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Intentional LIE and fabrication.
>>>>
>>>> It has been explained why this is wrong, and your ignoring that says
>>>> you KNOW you are lying.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I am telling the truth*
>>> *I am telling the truth*
>>> *I am telling the truth*
>>
>> Nope, proven otherwise.
>>
>>>
>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>>
>>> In all of the H/TMD cases above where
>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>>> H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
>>> are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
>>> that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, as explained for EACH H, and thus H^, there is a right answer.
> You aren't even saying that correctly.
>
> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
> (H TMD ⊢* H.qy != Actual_Behavior(TMD)) ∧
> (H TMD ⊢* H.qn != Actual_Behavior(TMD))
>

How does that refute what I said?

Actual_Behavior(TMD) has a value, and thus there IS a correct answer.

THe given H TMD defines which output state it will go to, and that
answer will be wrong.

So, if H TMD |-> qy, then Actual_Behavior(TMD) will be non-halting, and
that H was wrong.

or if H TMD |-> qn, then Actual_Behavior(TMD) will be halting.

For a given H and TMD, that H will only go to one of qy or qn, and THAT
answer will be wrong, and the otherone right,

You just seem to stupid to understand that.

On 13/03/2024 03:45, olcott wrote:
> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.

[SNIP]

> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

"Persistent willful ignorance hits a target that doesn't exist." B Knox

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed
at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan

--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------

On 4/29/2024 4:52 PM, Barb Knox wrote:
> On 13/03/2024 03:45, olcott wrote:
>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> "Persistent willful ignorance hits a target that doesn't exist."  B Knox
>
> "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
> who are laughed at are geniuses.  They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
> at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.  But they also laughed
> at Bozo the Clown."  Carl Sagan
>

Baseless rhetoric noted.

E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

I see you carefully analyzed the work of these two PhD computer science
professors and concluded it was nonsense on the basis of your assumption
that it must be nonsense.

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

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 4:52 PM, Barb Knox wrote:
>> On 13/03/2024 03:45, olcott wrote:
>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.

>> [SNIP]

>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>> "Persistent willful ignorance hits a target that doesn't exist."  B Knox

>> "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
>> who are laughed at are geniuses.  They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
>> at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.  But they also laughed
>> at Bozo the Clown."  Carl Sagan

> Baseless rhetoric noted.

Not at all baseless from anybody who's read (some of) your thousands of
posts to this newsgroup.

> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

> I see you carefully analyzed the work of these two PhD computer science
> professors and concluded it was nonsense on the basis of your assumption
> that it must be nonsense.

That's a non-sequitur. What is nonsense is most of what YOU have posted
here, and this has been pointed out to you time after time after time.
That's got nothing to do with what the two professors have written (which
may or may not be nonsense).

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

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On 4/30/2024 5:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 4:52 PM, Barb Knox wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2024 03:45, olcott wrote:
>>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>
>>> [SNIP]
>
>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
>>> "Persistent willful ignorance hits a target that doesn't exist."  B Knox
>
>>> "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
>>> who are laughed at are geniuses.  They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
>>> at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.  But they also laughed
>>> at Bozo the Clown."  Carl Sagan
>
>
>> Baseless rhetoric noted.
>
> Not at all baseless from anybody who's read (some of) your thousands of
> posts to this newsgroup.
>
>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
>> I see you carefully analyzed the work of these two PhD computer science
>> professors and concluded it was nonsense on the basis of your assumption
>> that it must be nonsense.
>
> That's a non-sequitur. What is nonsense is most of what YOU have posted
> here, and this has been pointed out to you time after time after time.

*This was the head of the original post*

This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
*Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis*

E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

*So you too assume that their work must be nonsense on*
*the basis of your assumption that it must be nonsense*

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

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/2024 5:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]

>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2024 4:52 PM, Barb Knox wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/2024 03:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.

>>>> [SNIP]

>>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>>>> "Persistent willful ignorance hits a target that doesn't exist."  B Knox

>>>> "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
>>>> who are laughed at are geniuses.  They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
>>>> at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.  But they also laughed
>>>> at Bozo the Clown."  Carl Sagan

>>> Baseless rhetoric noted.

>> Not at all baseless from anybody who's read (some of) your thousands of
>> posts to this newsgroup.

>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>> 20 December 2017
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

>>> I see you carefully analyzed the work of these two PhD computer science
>>> professors and concluded it was nonsense on the basis of your assumption
>>> that it must be nonsense.

>> That's a non-sequitur. What is nonsense is most of what YOU have posted
>> here, and this has been pointed out to you time after time after time.

> *This was the head of the original post*

> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
> *Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis*

As has been pointed out to you a ridiculously high number of times, the
halting problem is NOT an "unsatisfiable specification". For any
individual program/input, it is either definitely yes or definitely no.

If these two professors actually agree with your point of view (something
which has not been established here), then they are as mistaken as you
are.

> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

> *So you too assume that their work must be nonsense on*
> *the basis of your assumption that it must be nonsense*

No. I have not expressed any firm view on them. They are not here to
defend themselves. It is YOUR work which is largely nonsense,
contradicting as it does proven mathematical theorems. Since these
theorems ARE theorems, it is a waste of time looking at your
contradicting nonsense in any detail. Just as if you "proved" 2 + 2 = 5,
I wouldn't bother looking at your "proof"; I've got far better things to
do with my time.

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

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On 4/30/2024 11:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2024 5:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:52 PM, Barb Knox wrote:
>>>>> On 13/03/2024 03:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>>>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>
>>>>> [SNIP]
>
>>>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
>>>>> "Persistent willful ignorance hits a target that doesn't exist."  B Knox
>
>>>>> "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
>>>>> who are laughed at are geniuses.  They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
>>>>> at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.  But they also laughed
>>>>> at Bozo the Clown."  Carl Sagan
>
>
>>>> Baseless rhetoric noted.
>
>>> Not at all baseless from anybody who's read (some of) your thousands of
>>> posts to this newsgroup.
>
>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>>> 20 December 2017
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
>>>> I see you carefully analyzed the work of these two PhD computer science
>>>> professors and concluded it was nonsense on the basis of your assumption
>>>> that it must be nonsense.
>
>>> That's a non-sequitur. What is nonsense is most of what YOU have posted
>>> here, and this has been pointed out to you time after time after time.
>
>> *This was the head of the original post*
>
>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>> *Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis*
>
> As has been pointed out to you a ridiculously high number of times, the
> halting problem is NOT an "unsatisfiable specification".

Then exactly which steps of professor Hehner's or Stoddart's proof are
incorrect?

No one ever even looks at the steps, They only look at what the
conclusion says and say that it must be wrong because I disagree
with that conclusion.

> For any
> individual program/input, it is either definitely yes or definitely no.
>
> If these two professors actually agree with your point of view (something
> which has not been established here), then they are as mistaken as you
> are.
>
>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
>> *So you too assume that their work must be nonsense on*
>> *the basis of your assumption that it must be nonsense*
>
> No. I have not expressed any firm view on them. They are not here to
> defend themselves. It is YOUR work which is largely nonsense,

Professor's Hehner's analysis of Carol's question proves my point
and Carol's question was originally posed to me back in 2004 as
Jack's question so I am very familiar with it.

Professor Hehner also perfectly agrees with my position that the
halting problem cannot be solved only because it is an ill-formed
question. I stated this position in this forum back in 2004.
Professor Stoddart expresses similar views.

> contradicting as it does proven mathematical theorems. Since these
> theorems ARE theorems, it is a waste of time looking at your
> contradicting nonsense in any detail. Just as if you "proved" 2 + 2 = 5,
> I wouldn't bother looking at your "proof"; I've got far better things to
> do with my time.
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>

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

On 4/30/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/30/2024 5:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2024 4:52 PM, Barb Knox wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/2024 03:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
>>>>> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
>>
>>>> [SNIP]
>>
>>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
>>>> "Persistent willful ignorance hits a target that doesn't exist."  B
>>>> Knox
>>
>>>> "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that
>>>> all
>>>> who are laughed at are geniuses.  They laughed at Columbus, they
>>>> laughed
>>>> at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.  But they also laughed
>>>> at Bozo the Clown."  Carl Sagan
>>
>>
>>> Baseless rhetoric noted.
>>
>> Not at all baseless from anybody who's read (some of) your thousands of
>> posts to this newsgroup.
>>
>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>>> 20 December 2017
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>>> I see you carefully analyzed the work of these two PhD computer science
>>> professors and concluded it was nonsense on the basis of your assumption
>>> that it must be nonsense.
>>
>> That's a non-sequitur.  What is nonsense is most of what YOU have posted
>> here, and this has been pointed out to you time after time after time.
>
> *This was the head of the original post*
>
> This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
> an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
> *Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis*

But "Unsatisfiiable" is not "ill-formed".

Unsatisfiable means no machine can be created that computes it.

An Ill-formed computation problem is one where the mapping funciton
being asked to be computed isn't fully defined.

The "Halting Function" that H is being asked to compute is fully
defined, so the problem isn't "ill-formed"

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand these definitons.

>
> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
> *So you too assume that their work must be nonsense on*
> *the basis of your assumption that it must be nonsense*
>
>