On 3/18/2024 11:17 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 18/03/24 06:08, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/17/2024 7:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 18/03/24 00:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, but only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself. that H1 gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR, as there IS a truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value to the expression
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the requirment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definiton of an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulate its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist a mapping Halt(M,d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that maps all Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machines and there input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member of that input set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means tha Halts is a valid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping to ask a decider to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has never been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stopped beating their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include a presumption of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmarried men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some TM/input pairs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested is about the INPUTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure to always ignore this key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you are just shown to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by this input, Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer, thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and don't try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posed to each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because each of these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer, just not the one that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to qy and loops so qn was the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman deception
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really the best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to the ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question when posed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is a purely objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other, but can be given to any decider to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, and the correct answer will be the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrespective of you ask. Some will give the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right answer, and some will give the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer. The fact that that H is in the latter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't make the question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective is to try to redefine it so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Meta, where we prove that we can find an H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that any H will get wrong, but each of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are SEPERATE Halting question (not all one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question) and each of those seperate questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other TM such as H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question? posed to Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting your FALSE claims again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves you have no basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how logic works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy where anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their respective question (a)/(b):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ  halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus it is the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is programmed to answer "no" even though the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is "yes".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine
>>>>>>>>>>> that uses it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what answer is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return,
>>>>>>>>>>> so you can't assume any.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer for the H^ built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can
>>>>>>>>> give it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
>>>>>>>> author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
>>>>>>>> question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
>>>>>>>> answering by being gagged as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
>>>>>>>> thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>> "logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
>>>>>>>> professor Hehner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
>>>>>>>> food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
>>>>>>>> is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
>>>>>>>> of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a
>>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
>>>>>>>> context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
>>>>>>> someone may answer "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
>>>>>>>> is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
>>>>>>>> others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
>>>>>>>> wording of this question is not changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked.
>>>>>>> If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong
>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question
>>>>>> (a)/(b):
>>>>>> (a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>> *Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
>>>>>> *The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
>>>>>> *of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word question*
>>>>>> *is correct or incorrect*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the question, "Does the machine this input describes Halt when
>>>>> run?" doesn't depend on who you ask. (Unless your input isn't
>>>>> actually a Computation)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "Carol" question is about Carol being able to answer, so it
>>>>> naturally depend on Carol.
>>>>>
>>>>> THe Halting Question doesn't mention the decider in any way, so
>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the particular question include a copy of one decider, but
>>>>> that doesn't refer to that decider in any specific way, so doesn't
>>>>> make the question change.
>>>>
>>>> The question is the same: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>> The answer is the same (assuming a simulating halt decider): YES.
>>>> For H1 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is CORRECT  // waits for more execution
>>>> traces
>>>> For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is INCORRECT
>>>
>>> Wrong, it's correct in both cases because Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts in all cases.
>>>
>> H1 correctly determines that it need not abort its simulation thus
>> returns 1
>> H has the inductive basis to know that it must abort its simulation
>> thus returns 0
>
> Completely irrelevant strawman deception ignored. H1's job and H's job
> is to tell whether the direct execution of D(D) would halt.

On 19/03/24 00:10, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 11:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 18/03/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>> When H1 says YES it is right.
>>>>> When H says YES it is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and only
>>>> if D(D) halts.
>>>>
>>> *When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
>>>
>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   D(D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That would be a different D. The facts that Hah(Dah,Dah) returns TRUE
>> and Dah gets stuck at line 05 do not prove that Han(Dan,Dan) returns
>> TRUE and Dan gets stuck at line 05.
>
> *D is always the exact same finite string of machine code bytes*
>

The argument to a halting decider must be a self-contained program and
the input to that program. The same finite string must always have the
same behaviour.

On 3/18/2024 6:35 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 19/03/24 00:10, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/18/2024 11:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 18/03/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> When H1 says YES it is right.
>>>>>> When H says YES it is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and only
>>>>> if D(D) halts.
>>>>>
>>>> *When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
>>>>
>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 void main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11   D(D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would be a different D. The facts that Hah(Dah,Dah) returns TRUE
>>> and Dah gets stuck at line 05 do not prove that Han(Dan,Dan) returns
>>> TRUE and Dan gets stuck at line 05.
>>
>> *D is always the exact same finite string of machine code bytes*
>>
>
> The argument to a halting decider must be a self-contained program and
> the input to that program. The same finite string must always have the
> same behaviour.

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

is self-contained yet still refers to an infinite set of encoding of H
such that the answer Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is always contradicted.

Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.

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

On 3/18/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 11:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 18/03/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>> When H1 says YES it is right.
>>>>> When H says YES it is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and only
>>>> if D(D) halts.
>>>>
>>> *When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
>>>
>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   D(D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That would be a different D. The facts that Hah(Dah,Dah) returns TRUE
>> and Dah gets stuck at line 05 do not prove that Han(Dan,Dan) returns
>> TRUE and Dan gets stuck at line 05.
>
> *D is always the exact same finite string of machine code bytes*
>

In other words you are admitting that you have been lying about having
ANYTHING to do with:

1) A Turing Equivalent to the Halting Problem proof you have been
talking about all these years.

2) Following the Linz or Sipser description with ANY sort of fidelity.

3) Being applicable to Computation Theory

4) Being applicable to most of computer Theory (where program represents
a FULL program, and subroutines tend to include everything they use when
we talk about their behavior).

Good to know you are admitting this finally after all these years.

You know, this means you can NEVER call your D "isomorphic" to anythihg
you have been claiming it is, because it just isn't.

But, until you formally renounce those connections, we can still use the
interpretations of what "Program D" means, which INCLUDE the H it is
supposed to call, even if you forgot to included it in the finite string.

On 3/18/24 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 6:35 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 19/03/24 00:10, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2024 11:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> When H1 says YES it is right.
>>>>>>> When H says YES it is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and
>>>>>> only if D(D) halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
>>>>>
>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   D(D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would be a different D. The facts that Hah(Dah,Dah) returns
>>>> TRUE and Dah gets stuck at line 05 do not prove that Han(Dan,Dan)
>>>> returns TRUE and Dan gets stuck at line 05.
>>>
>>> *D is always the exact same finite string of machine code bytes*
>>>
>>
>> The argument to a halting decider must be a self-contained program and
>> the input to that program. The same finite string must always have the
>> same behaviour.
>
> 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
>
> is self-contained yet still refers to an infinite set of encoding of H
> such that the answer Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is always contradicted.
>
> Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
> such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
> and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
> is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
>

More of your lies.

H^ in Linz's proof is ALWAYS a SPECIFIC MACHINE and contains a copy of a
SPECIFIC (but general) decider.

You are just too stupid to understand what he is saying, which has made
you into the self-made pathetic moronic ignorant pathological lying
idiot that you are today.
And, it seems you have no one to blame but yourself, as it seems you
worked ery hard to make your self this dumb.

On 3/18/24 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 11:17 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 18/03/24 06:08, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2024 7:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/24 00:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, but only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself. that H1 gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR, as there IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirment for ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being asked an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definiton of an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulate its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist a mapping Halt(M,d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that maps all Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machines and there input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member of that input set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means tha Halts is a valid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping to ask a decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has never been married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stopped beating their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include a presumption of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never unmarried men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some TM/input pairs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested is about the INPUTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question we must examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure to always ignore this key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you are just shown to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by this input, Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer, thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and don't try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question posed to each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because each of these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer, just not the one that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to qy and loops so qn was the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception really the best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to the ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question when posed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is a purely objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decider looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other, but can be given to any decider to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, and the correct answer will be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same irrespective of you ask. Some will give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer, and some will give the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer. The fact that that H is in the latter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't make the question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective is to try to redefine it so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Meta, where we prove that we can find an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one question) and each of those seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other TM such as H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question? posed to Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting your FALSE claims again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves you have no basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how logic works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy where anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their respective question (a)/(b):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ  halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus it is the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it is programmed to answer "no" even though the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer is "yes".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> that uses it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what answer is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so you can't assume any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer for the H^ built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can
>>>>>>>>>> give it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
>>>>>>>>> author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
>>>>>>>>> question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
>>>>>>>>> answering by being gagged as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
>>>>>>>>> thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>> "logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
>>>>>>>>> professor Hehner.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
>>>>>>>>> food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
>>>>>>>>> is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
>>>>>>>>> of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a
>>>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
>>>>>>>>> context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
>>>>>>>> someone may answer "no".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
>>>>>>>>> is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
>>>>>>>>> others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
>>>>>>>>> wording of this question is not changed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is
>>>>>>>> asked.
>>>>>>>> If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong
>>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question
>>>>>>> (a)/(b):
>>>>>>> (a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
>>>>>>> *The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
>>>>>>> *of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word question*
>>>>>>> *is correct or incorrect*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the question, "Does the machine this input describes Halt when
>>>>>> run?" doesn't depend on who you ask. (Unless your input isn't
>>>>>> actually a Computation)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "Carol" question is about Carol being able to answer, so it
>>>>>> naturally depend on Carol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THe Halting Question doesn't mention the decider in any way, so
>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the particular question include a copy of one decider, but
>>>>>> that doesn't refer to that decider in any specific way, so doesn't
>>>>>> make the question change.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is the same: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>>> The answer is the same (assuming a simulating halt decider): YES.
>>>>> For H1 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is CORRECT  // waits for more execution
>>>>> traces
>>>>> For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is INCORRECT
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, it's correct in both cases because Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts in all cases.
>>>>
>>> H1 correctly determines that it need not abort its simulation thus
>>> returns 1
>>> H has the inductive basis to know that it must abort its simulation
>>> thus returns 0
>>
>> Completely irrelevant strawman deception ignored. H1's job and H's job
>> is to tell whether the direct execution of D(D) would halt.
>
> It is incorrect for H(D,D) to report that D(D) halts because
> D(D) never halts when H believes that D(D) halts.
>
> It is only because H(D,D) sees that it must intervene and force
> D(D) to stop running that D(D) ever stops running.
>

On 3/18/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/18/24 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/18/2024 11:17 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 18/03/24 06:08, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2024 7:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 18/03/24 00:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/17/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only one of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself. that H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the right answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR, as there IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirment for ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being asked an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definiton of an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulate its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist a mapping Halt(M,d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that maps all Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machines and there input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a result of Halting /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting for EVERY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member of that input set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means tha Halts is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid mapping to ask a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider to try to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man that has never been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stopped beating their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never unmarried men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for all unmarried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some TM/input pairs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested is about the INPUTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question we must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure to always ignore this key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ !=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, so you are just shown to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by this input, Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer, thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and don't try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question posed to each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because each of these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct answer, just not the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to qy and loops so qn was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception really the best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to the ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question when posed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is a purely objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decider looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no other, but can be given to any decider to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, and the correct answer will be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same irrespective of you ask. Some will give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer, and some will give the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter doesn't make the question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective is to try to redefine it so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Meta, where we prove that we can find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one question) and each of those seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other TM such as H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question? posed to Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting your FALSE claims again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves you have no basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand how logic works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy where anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their respective question (a)/(b):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ  halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus it is the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it is programmed to answer "no" even though the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer is "yes".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that uses it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what answer is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you can't assume any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer for the H^ built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can
>>>>>>>>>>> give it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
>>>>>>>>>> author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
>>>>>>>>>> question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
>>>>>>>>>> answering by being gagged as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
>>>>>>>>>> thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>> "logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
>>>>>>>>>> professor Hehner.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
>>>>>>>>>> food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
>>>>>>>>>> is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
>>>>>>>>>> of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a
>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
>>>>>>>>>> context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
>>>>>>>>> someone may answer "no".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
>>>>>>>>>> is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
>>>>>>>>>> others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
>>>>>>>>>> wording of this question is not changed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is
>>>>>>>>> asked.
>>>>>>>>> If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong
>>>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question
>>>>>>>> (a)/(b):
>>>>>>>> (a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
>>>>>>>> *The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
>>>>>>>> *of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word
>>>>>>>> question*
>>>>>>>> *is correct or incorrect*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the question, "Does the machine this input describes Halt
>>>>>>> when run?" doesn't depend on who you ask. (Unless your input
>>>>>>> isn't actually a Computation)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your "Carol" question is about Carol being able to answer, so it
>>>>>>> naturally depend on Carol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THe Halting Question doesn't mention the decider in any way, so
>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the particular question include a copy of one decider, but
>>>>>>> that doesn't refer to that decider in any specific way, so
>>>>>>> doesn't make the question change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is the same: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>>>> The answer is the same (assuming a simulating halt decider): YES.
>>>>>> For H1 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is CORRECT  // waits for more execution
>>>>>> traces
>>>>>> For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is INCORRECT
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, it's correct in both cases because Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts in all cases.
>>>>>
>>>> H1 correctly determines that it need not abort its simulation thus
>>>> returns 1
>>>> H has the inductive basis to know that it must abort its simulation
>>>> thus returns 0
>>>
>>> Completely irrelevant strawman deception ignored. H1's job and H's
>>> job is to tell whether the direct execution of D(D) would halt.
>>
>> It is incorrect for H(D,D) to report that D(D) halts because
>> D(D) never halts when H believes that D(D) halts.
>>
>> It is only because H(D,D) sees that it must intervene and force
>> D(D) to stop running that D(D) ever stops running.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Bad Logic.
>
> D(D) will do what it does.
>
> H is supposed to report on THAT.
>
> "Correct Abort Criteria" is also about that, as you have agreed
>
> Thus, you are stating a falsehood.

On 3/19/24 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/18/24 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2024 11:17 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/24 06:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2024 7:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/03/24 00:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/17/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 1:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only one of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each quesiton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole class of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. You said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself. that H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer for D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is a logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossibility to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for H to do this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR, as there IS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirment for ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECIFIC H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar may possibly cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from H(D,D) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D) that exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being asked an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because it is NOT a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definiton of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invented it so I get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulate its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, common technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt(M,d) that maps all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machines and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there input to a result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Halting / Non-Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for EVERY member of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input set, means tha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts is a valid mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ask a decider to try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man that has never been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tour wife?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stopped beating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their wife.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question include a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not actually present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never unmarried men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for all unmarried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some TM/input pairs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect for H/D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested is about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question we must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to always ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this key detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> cheating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ !=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn;t the question at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, so you are just shown to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The QUESTION is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the machine and input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by this input, Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question posed to Ĥ.H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no correct answer, thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then tell me which element of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you explain why this element is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and don't try to switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say there was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you understand that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question posed to each Ĥ.H in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above set has no correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only because each of these answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are contradicted by the machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand that the IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct answer, just not the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show me which contradicted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (H^) goes to qy and loops so qn was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The strawman deception is all that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The answer must come from elements of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above set*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a false claim about a strawman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception really the best you can say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above are the program/input pairs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the wrong answer only because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are the set that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the answer to the ACTUAL QUESTION needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit goes to you for finding the loophole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Carol's original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can anyone correctly answer “no”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol can correctly answer that question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with any word that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with "no".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that anyone besides Carol can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question with a NO and Carol cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that question proves that it is a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question when posed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is a purely objective question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decider looking at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no other, but can be given to any decider to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, and the correct answer will be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same irrespective of you ask. Some will give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer, and some will give the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter doesn't make the question subjective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to make the Halting Question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective is to try to redefine it so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The changing H^ to match the H only happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Meta, where we prove that we can find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one question) and each of those seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions have a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's question posed to Carol <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some other TM such as H1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is not contradicted) can determine a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ERRORS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is a volitional being.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an AI machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question? posed to Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be correctly answered is that the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting your FALSE claims again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inability to show WHY my description was wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just proves you have no basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand how logic works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you think this is just some abstract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy where anything goes and rhetoric rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *is not contradicted just like*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their respective question (a)/(b):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ  halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus it is the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt  (always does the opposite of what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it is programmed to answer "no" even though the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer is "yes".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that uses it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what answer is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return, so you can't assume any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer for the H^ built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can
>>>>>>>>>>>> give it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
>>>>>>>>>>> author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
>>>>>>>>>>> question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
>>>>>>>>>>> answering by being gagged as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
>>>>>>>>>>> thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>>> "logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
>>>>>>>>>>> professor Hehner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
>>>>>>>>>>> food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
>>>>>>>>>>> is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
>>>>>>>>>>> of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
>>>>>>>>>>> context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
>>>>>>>>>> someone may answer "no".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
>>>>>>>>>>> is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
>>>>>>>>>>> others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
>>>>>>>>>>> wording of this question is not changed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is
>>>>>>>>>> asked.
>>>>>>>>>> If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong
>>>>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question
>>>>>>>>> (a)/(b):
>>>>>>>>> (a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>>>>>>> lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>>>>>>>> *Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct
>>>>>>>>> answers*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
>>>>>>>>> *The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
>>>>>>>>> *of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word
>>>>>>>>> question*
>>>>>>>>> *is correct or incorrect*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the question, "Does the machine this input describes Halt
>>>>>>>> when run?" doesn't depend on who you ask. (Unless your input
>>>>>>>> isn't actually a Computation)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your "Carol" question is about Carol being able to answer, so it
>>>>>>>> naturally depend on Carol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THe Halting Question doesn't mention the decider in any way, so
>>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, the particular question include a copy of one decider, but
>>>>>>>> that doesn't refer to that decider in any specific way, so
>>>>>>>> doesn't make the question change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is the same: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
>>>>>>> The answer is the same (assuming a simulating halt decider): YES.
>>>>>>> For H1 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is CORRECT  // waits for more
>>>>>>> execution traces
>>>>>>> For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is INCORRECT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, it's correct in both cases because Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts in all cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>> H1 correctly determines that it need not abort its simulation thus
>>>>> returns 1
>>>>> H has the inductive basis to know that it must abort its simulation
>>>>> thus returns 0
>>>>
>>>> Completely irrelevant strawman deception ignored. H1's job and H's
>>>> job is to tell whether the direct execution of D(D) would halt.
>>>
>>> It is incorrect for H(D,D) to report that D(D) halts because
>>> D(D) never halts when H believes that D(D) halts.
>>>
>>> It is only because H(D,D) sees that it must intervene and force
>>> D(D) to stop running that D(D) ever stops running.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Bad Logic.
>>
>> D(D) will do what it does.
>>
>> H is supposed to report on THAT.
>>
>> "Correct Abort Criteria" is also about that, as you have agreed
>>
>> Thus, you are stating a falsehood.
>
> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?