On 10/29/23 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from
>>>>>>> H(D)
>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification
>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no
>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>
>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>
>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>
>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>
>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>
>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>
>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>
>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>
>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>> problem specification.
>>>
>>
>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>
>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>
>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>
>
>    Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>    work in the formal system, so any claim you
>    make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>
> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.

Maybe in a non-formal system or setting, but in Computability Theory, it
means, and EXACTLY means that there does not exist a Turing Machine that
can compute the "function".

What "nuances" are you claiming?

Remember also, that the "Function" mentioned is nothing more than a
mathematical mapping of input objects to output values, defined for all
elements of the input domain.

>
> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>

Nope. You still don't understand the meaning of the words.

Completeness, means PRECISELY and nothing more, that all true statements
in the system can be proven in the system.

Incompleteness, thus, means that there exists, at least ONE true
statement in the system that can not be proven in that system.

For Godels proof, that statement is "that there does not exist a natural
number g that satisfies a particular Primative Recursive Relationship"
that was derived in a meta-system of the system, but said PRR is fully
defined in that system.

What is "self-contradictory" of that statement?

Remeber, all the arguments about provability doen't exist in the system,
and "self-contrdiction" is a property in the system being discussed.

Your problem is you don't understand the logic of the proof enough to
understand what the statement actually is.

Go ahead, try to actually answer one of the questions with an actual
logical answer based on FACTS,

My guess is you are going to again, just restate your FALSE claims and
thus prove that you don't actually have any true basis for your claims.

DARE YOU to try to answer.

On 10/29/23 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/29/23 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from
>>>>>>>> H(D)
>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not
>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification
>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>
>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>
>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>> problem specification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>
>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>
>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>
>>
>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>
>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>
> Maybe in a non-formal system or setting, but in Computability Theory, it
> means, and EXACTLY means that there does not exist a Turing Machine that
> can compute the "function".
>
>
> What "nuances" are you claiming?
>
>
> Remember also, that the "Function" mentioned is nothing more than a
> mathematical mapping of input objects to output values, defined for all
> elements of the input domain.
>
>>
>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>
>
> Nope. You still don't understand the meaning of the words.
>
> Completeness, means PRECISELY and nothing more, that all true statements
> in the system can be proven in the system.
>
> Incompleteness, thus, means that there exists, at least ONE true
> statement in the system that can not be proven in that system.
>
> For Godels proof, that statement is "that there does not exist a natural
> number g that satisfies a particular Primative Recursive Relationship"
> that was derived in a meta-system of the system, but said PRR is fully
> defined in that system.
>
>
> What is "self-contradictory" of that statement?
>
>
> Remeber, all the arguments about provability doen't exist in the system,
> and "self-contrdiction" is a property in the system being discussed.
>
> Your problem is you don't understand the logic of the proof enough to
> understand what the statement actually is.
>
>
> Go ahead, try to actually answer one of the questions with an actual
> logical answer based on FACTS,
>
> My guess is you are going to again, just restate your FALSE claims and
> thus prove that you don't actually have any true basis for your claims.
>
> DARE YOU to try to answer.

I will add, that "The results proves something I don't like" is not
grounds for saying something is wrong.

You need to show an ACTUAL contradiction in the system by the
definitions in the system (not something added)

On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from
>>>>>>> H(D)
>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification
>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no
>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>
>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>
>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>
>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>
>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>
>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>
>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>
>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>
>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>> problem specification.
>>>
>>
>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>
>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>
>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>
>
>    Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>    work in the formal system, so any claim you
>    make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>
> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>
> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/29/23 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from
>>>>>>>> H(D)
>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not
>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification
>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>
>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>
>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>> problem specification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>
>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>
>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>
>>
>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>
>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>
>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

So, as predicted, you couldn't answer any of the question put to you and
you just repeated your LIE agian, thus proving you argument has no basis.

You still don't understand that "self-contradictory" needs to refer to
"self", but nothing in the Halting Problem proof actually "refered" to
"self"

And that the question possed, does have a single correct answer, so it
can't be "contridtory".

Thus proving you are just a LIAR.

Your refusal to actually answer any of the errors pointed out is just
hammering nails into the coffin of your argument, which died years ago,
and you have spent your last years just beating a dead red herring.

On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from
>>>>>>>> H(D)
>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not
>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification
>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>
>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>
>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>> problem specification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>
>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>
>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>
>>
>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>
>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>
>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
correct.

If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.

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

On 10/29/23 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not
>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>
>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>
>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>
>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>
>>>
>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>
>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>
>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>
>>
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>
> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
> correct.

You haven't given a "correct" reason, but only things based on incorrect
definitions, as are unsound,

And anonymous supports without even quoting exactly what they agreed to
just makes you look foolish

My guess is you aren't going to quote what they actually said as you
know you are misinterpreting statements and don't want that pointed out,
like you error with Prof Sipser.

>
> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>

That is what YOU are doing. I give reasons based on the actual
definitions, and logical argument. You give "reasons" based on your
incorrect definitions that you can not support, and don't even try to
build an Formal Argument.

If you want to get out of unsound not-rebutting mode, maybe you should
try to answer some of the questions put to you.

Until then, you are just proving yourself to be the idiot.

On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not
>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>
>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>
>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>
>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>
>>>
>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>
>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>
>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>
>>
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>
> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
> correct.
>
> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>

When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.

When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
has enormous consequences:

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

We had to boil it down to its sound bite form to
sharply focus attention on a single point so that
rebuttals based on the strawman deception or ad
hominem are easily seen as having no basis what-so-ever.

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

On 10/29/23 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>
>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>
>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>> correct.
>>
>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>
>
> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.

It doesn't take more than a glance to see your errors.

Your failure to actually point out an error in my statements says that
you don't even attempt an "incorrect rebuttal" but are just accepting
the errors I have pointed out as actual errors.

YOU seem to be the one just taking a glance at MY words.

You do seem to project a lot of your errors on others, just like Trump.

On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>
>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>
>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>> correct.
>>
>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>
>
> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
>
> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
> has enormous consequences:
>

Except that you haven't show how it CAN be true,
since there actually is no "self-reference" to
lead to the "self-contradictory" question.

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

On 10/29/23 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another
>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return
>>>>>>>>>>> then the
>>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>> places no actual
>>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>
>>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>>
>>
>> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
>> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
>>
>> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
>> has enormous consequences:
>>
>
>    Except that you haven't show how it CAN be true,
>    since there actually is no "self-reference" to
>    lead to the "self-contradictory" question.
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>
>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>
>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>> correct.
>>
>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>
>
> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
>
> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
> has enormous consequences:
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

*A self-contradictory question is defined as*
Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.

Every D derives a self-contradictory question for every
corresponding H in that:
(a) when each H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) when each H that says its D will loop it halts.

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:22:10 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
> >>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
> >>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
> >>>>>>>>>> opposite of
> >>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
> >>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
> >>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
> >>>>>>>>>> not halt
> >>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
> >>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
> >>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
> >>>>>>>>>> specification thus
> >>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
> >>>>>>>>>> answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
> >>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
> >>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
> >>>>>>>>>> the one
> >>>>>>>>>> answering it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
> >>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
> >>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
> >>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
> >>>>>>>>>> no actual
> >>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
> >>>>>>>>>> pathological
> >>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
> >>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
> >>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
> >>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
> >>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
> >>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
> >>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> >>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
> >>>>>>> and no "expert" can contradict the
> >>>>>>> actual definitions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
> >>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
> >>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
> >>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
> >>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
> >>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
> >>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
> >>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
> >>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
> >>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
> >>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
> >>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
> >>>>>> problem specification.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
> >>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
> >>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
> >>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
> >>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
> >>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
> >>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
> >>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you are admtting that you can't do the
> >>>> work in the formal system, so any claim you
> >>>> make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
> >>>>
> >>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
> >>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
> >>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
> >>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
> >>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
> >>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> >>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
> >>
> >> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
> >> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
> >> correct.
> >>
> >> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
> >> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
> >>
> >
> > When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
> > for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
> >
> > When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
> > has enormous consequences:
> >
> > *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> > *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
> Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>
> Every D derives a self-contradictory question for every
> corresponding H in that:
> (a) when each H says that its D will halt, D loops
> (b) when each H that says its D will loop it halts.
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>
>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>
>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>> correct.
>>
>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>
>
> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
>
> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
> has enormous consequences:
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>

*A self-contradictory question is defined as*
Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.

For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that:
(a) When each H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) When each H that says its D will loop it halts.

On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places
>>>>>>>>>> no actual
>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>
>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>
>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>> correct.
>>
>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>
>
> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
>
> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
> has enormous consequences:
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
(a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
*Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*

On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
> whatever H says.
>
> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>
> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>
> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
> answer.
>
> What time is it (yes or no)?
> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
> answering it.
>
> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>
> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no actual
> limit on anyone or anything.
>
> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

*A self-contradictory question is defined as*
Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.

For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
(a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
*Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*

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

On 10/30/23 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another
>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return
>>>>>>>>>>> then the
>>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>> places no actual
>>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>
>>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>>
>>
>> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
>> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
>>
>> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
>> has enormous consequences:
>>
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>
> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>   Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.

On 10/30/23 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2023 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>>>>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another
>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the
>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value
>>>>>>>>>>> from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does
>>>>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>>>>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>>> specification thus
>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>>>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not
>>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return
>>>>>>>>>>> then the
>>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question
>>>>>>>>>>> places no actual
>>>>>>>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these
>>>>>>>>>>> pathological
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proofs merely show that the problem
>>>>>>>>>> definition is unsatisfiable because every H of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>> set of all Turing Machines has an input that makes the
>>>>>>>>>> question: Does your input halt? into a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> thus incorrect question for this H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I now have two University professors that agree with this.
>>>>>>>>> My words may need some technical improvement...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [problem specification] is unsatisfiable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The idea is to convey the essence of many technical
>>>>>>>>> papers in a single sound bite:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>>>>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Anonymous experts are not "evidence"
>>>>>>>>     and no "expert" can contradict the
>>>>>>>>     actual definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole thing is a matter of these definitions
>>>>>>>> semantically entailing additional nuances of meaning
>>>>>>>> that no one ever noticed before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computer scientists almost never pay any attention
>>>>>>>> at all to the philosophical underpinnings of the
>>>>>>>> foundations of concepts such as undecidability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my related work in the last twenty years
>>>>>>>> has focused on these foundational underpinnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the same way that incompleteness is proven whenever
>>>>>>> any WFF of a formal system cannot be proven or refuted
>>>>>>> in this formal system EVEN WHEN THE WFF IS SEMANTICALLY
>>>>>>> SELF-CONTRADICTORY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The notion of undecidability is determined even when the
>>>>>>> decider is required to correctly answer a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the epiphany of my work for the last 20 years and
>>>>>>> two professors agree that this does apply to the halting
>>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot form a proof on the basis of the conventional
>>>>>> definitions because the issue is that one of these
>>>>>> definitions semantically entails more meaning than
>>>>>> anyone ever noticed before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That this applies generically to the notion of undecidability
>>>>>> seems to be an extension of these sames ideas that these
>>>>>> professors only applied to the halting problem specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lead of these two professors and I exchanged fifty emails
>>>>>> where he confirmed my verbatim paraphrase of his ideas using
>>>>>> my own terms such as "incorrect questions".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Then you are admtting that you can't do the
>>>>>     work in the formal system, so any claim you
>>>>>     make about anything IN the system is just invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the "term undecidability" semantically entails
>>>>> previously unnoticed nuances of meaning can be understood
>>>>> on the basis of the reasoning of myself and these two professors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like incompleteness includes self-contradictory
>>>>> expressions in its measure of incompleteness, undecidability
>>>>> includes problem specifications that entail self-contradictory
>>>>> questions. IF YOU WEREN'T STUCK IN REBUTTAL MODE YOU MIGHT SEE THIS
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>
>>> Once you pay enough attention to see that the reasoning does
>>> entail this then you will know that I and the two professors are
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> If you only want to provide a rebuttal no matter what the actual truth
>>> is then you will continue to pretend that you don't see this.
>>>
>>
>> When you just glance at my words to form a superficial basis
>> for an incorrect rebuttal you won't see this.
>>
>> When we hypothesize that this <is> literally true then it
>> has enormous consequences:
>>
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>
> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>
>

On 10/30/23 9:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>> whatever H says.
>>
>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>
>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>
>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>> answer.
>>
>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>> answering it.
>>
>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>
>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no actual
>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>
>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>
> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>   Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>
> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>
>

So?

For each D, and the question is ALWAYS about a specific D, there is a
correct answer, so the question is not contradictory.

The fact that for every H there is some input that it gets wrong, just
shows that no H is correct for every input, and thus no H is a correct
decider and thus the problem is uncomputable.

For the problem to be contradictory, there would need to be a SPECIFIC
input that didn't have an answer to the question, but every specific
input has a specific answer, it just isn't the answer that the specific
H that this specific input was built on gives.

You are just making the same category error of confusing sets of
deciders and inputs for a single input.

I guess to you an large set of somethings is the exact same things as on
of the somethings.

That is that same as saying that everyone is the same person.

That is the stupidity of your logic.

On 10/30/2023 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>> whatever H says.
>>
>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>
>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>
>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>> answer.
>>
>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>> answering it.
>>
>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>
>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no actual
>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>
>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>
> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>   Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>
> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*

*proving that this is literally true*
*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

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

On 10/30/23 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>> whatever H says.
>>>
>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>
>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>
>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>> answering it.
>>>
>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>
>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no actual
>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>
>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>
>>
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>>    Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>>
>> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
>> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
>> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
>> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
>> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*

And since of a specifiec D, based on a specific H, that H will only
answer one of the ways, there IS a correct answer, as D has definite
behavior,

>
> *proving that this is literally true*
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>

Nope, since each specific question HAS a correct answer, it shows that,
by your own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"

You are just proving your stupidity by repeating this category error.

On 10/30/2023 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>> whatever H says.
>>>
>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>
>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>
>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>> answering it.
>>>
>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>
>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no actual
>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>
>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>
>>
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>>    Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>>
>> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
>> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
>> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
>> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
>> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>
> *proving that this is literally true*
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>

Nope, since each specific question HAS
a correct answer, it shows that, by your
own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"

*That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
*That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
*That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*

There does not exist a solution to the halting problem because
*for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
*for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
*for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*

there exists a D that makes the question:
Does your input halt?
a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.

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

On 10/30/23 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/30/2023 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>
>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>
>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>
>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>>> answering it.
>>>>
>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>
>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no
>>>> actual
>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>
>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>
>>> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>>>    Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>>>
>>> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
>>> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
>>> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
>>> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
>>> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>>
>> *proving that this is literally true*
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>
>    Nope, since each specific question HAS
>    a correct answer, it shows that, by your
>    own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"
>
> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*

Nope, How is your statement that "Self-Contradictiory questions have no
correct answer" plus the fact that the quesiton is about a SPECIFIC
input being asked about (and each input is thus a seperate question to
answer) and the fact that for each of these input, there is a correct
answer.

We thus have the logical argument

Define A: The problem is self-contradictory
Define B: The Problem has no correct answer.

Your statement: A -> B

Because every question does have a correct answer, we have ~B

From the definition of Implication

A -> B
~B

Therefore ~A

so the problem can not be self-contradictory.

Don't you understand basic logic?

>
> There does not exist a solution to the halting problem because
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>
> there exists a D that makes the question:
> Does your input halt?
> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.
>
>

Where does it say that a Turing Machine must exsit to do it?

That is the definition of Decidability/Computability of the Problem, not
validity of the problem.

The issue is that for every instance D, there IS a correct answer, and
thus the problem is VALID.

As shown above, your claim that the problem is self-contradictory has
been prove FALSE, and thus your whole logic turns unsound.

(As seems to be your whold mind).

On 10/30/2023 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/30/2023 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>
>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>
>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>
>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>>> answering it.
>>>>
>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>
>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no
>>>> actual
>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>
>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>
>>> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>>>    Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>>>
>>> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
>>> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
>>> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
>>> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
>>> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>>
>> *proving that this is literally true*
>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>
>
>    Nope, since each specific question HAS
>    a correct answer, it shows that, by your
>    own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"
>
> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
>
> There does not exist a solution to the halting problem because
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>
> there exists a D that makes the question:
> Does your input halt?
> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.

Where does it say that a Turing
Machine must exsit to do it?

*The only reason that no such Turing Machine exists is*

For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
(a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
(b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
*Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*

*therefore*

*The halting problem proofs merely show that*
*self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

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

On 10/30/23 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/30/2023 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2023 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>
>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>
>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no
>>>>> actual
>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>
>>>> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>>>>    Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>>>>
>>>> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
>>>> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
>>>> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
>>>> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
>>>> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>>>
>>> *proving that this is literally true*
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>
>>
>>     Nope, since each specific question HAS
>>     a correct answer, it shows that, by your
>>     own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"
>>
>> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
>> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
>> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
>>
>> There does not exist a solution to the halting problem because
>> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>>
>> there exists a D that makes the question:
>> Does your input halt?
>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.
>
>    Where does it say that a Turing
>    Machine must exsit to do it?
>
> *The only reason that no such Turing Machine exists is*
>
> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>
> *therefore*
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>

Nope. UNSOUND logic (from an unsound mind) as has been explained, and
your refusal to understand it shows your stupidity, and ignorance of how
logic works.

Your repeating it shows that you have the maturity of a Two-year-old.

The issue that you ignore is that you are confalting a set of questions
with a question, and are baseing your logic on a strawman, which by your
own statements make you a stinking lying bastard.

The ACTUAL question, is does the SPECIFIC input to the decider,
decscribe a SPECIFIC computation that will Halt in finite time when
performed. For ANY of these Ds your reference above, there IS an answer
for that D, and thus the question has an answer and is valid and thus
can not be "self-contradictory".

Your "Strawman Question" of what can H return to get the right answer,
is just that, a Strawman question, and in fact, an illogical question,
as a given H can only return on answer for a given input, the one that
its algorithm will generate. It giving some other answer is just
self-contradictory.

The fact that you keep repeating this LIE just shows that you are either
a total idiot incapable of understanding even the basics of logic, or
that you are just a pathological liar that has gas-lite himself into
believing his own lies.

Either way, you have disqualified your self from being a reliable source
to look to about questions of logic.

Sorry, that is just the facts.

Your refusal to actually try to deal with the errors pointed out just
shows your utter lack of intelligence in this field, and your moral
bankrupcy by your attempt to use a Big Lie to press your point.

On 10/30/2023 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/30/2023 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2023 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2023 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *Everyone agrees that this is impossible*
>>>>> No computer program H can correctly predict what another computer
>>>>> program D will do when D has been programmed to do the opposite of
>>>>> whatever H says.
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D) is functional notation that specifies the return value from H(D)
>>>>> Correct(H(D)==false) means that H(D) is correct that D does not halt
>>>>> Correct(H(D)==true) means that H(D) is correct that D does halt
>>>>>
>>>>> For all H ∈ TM there exists input D such that
>>>>> (Correct(H(D)==false) ∨ (Correct(H(D)==true))==false
>>>>>
>>>>> *No one pays attention to what this impossibility means*
>>>>> The halting problem is defined as an unsatisfiable specification thus
>>>>> isomorphic to a question that has been defined to have no correct
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>> has no correct answer because there is something wrong with the
>>>>> question. In this case we know to blame the question and not the one
>>>>> answering it.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we understand that there are some inputs to every TM H that
>>>>> contradict both Boolean return values that H could return then the
>>>>> question: Does your input halt? is essentially a self-contradictory
>>>>> (thus incorrect) question in these cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> The inability to correctly answer an incorrect question places no
>>>>> actual
>>>>> limit on anyone or anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> This insight opens up an alternative treatment of these pathological
>>>>> inputs the same way that ZFC handled Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>>
>>>> *A self-contradictory question is defined as*
>>>>    Any yes/no question that contradicts both yes/no answers.
>>>>
>>>> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
>>>> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
>>>> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
>>>> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
>>>> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>>>
>>> *proving that this is literally true*
>>> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
>>> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*
>>>
>>
>>     Nope, since each specific question HAS
>>     a correct answer, it shows that, by your
>>     own definition, it isn't "Self-Contradictory"
>>
>> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
>> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
>> *That is a deliberate strawman deception paraphrase*
>>
>> There does not exist a solution to the halting problem because
>> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>> *for every Turing Machine of the infinite set of all Turing machines*
>>
>> there exists a D that makes the question:
>> Does your input halt?
>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.
>
>    Where does it say that a Turing
>    Machine must exsit to do it?
>
> *The only reason that no such Turing Machine exists is*
>
> For every H in the set of all Turing Machines there exists a D
> that derives a self-contradictory question for this H in that
> (a) If this H says that its D will halt, D loops
> (b) If this H that says its D will loop it halts.
> *Thus the question: Does D halt? is contradicted by some D for each H*
>
> *therefore*
>
> *The halting problem proofs merely show that*
> *self-contradictory questions have no correct answer*

The issue that you ignore is that you are
confalting a set of questions with a question,
and are baseing your logic on a strawman,

It is not my mistake. Linguists understand that the
context of who is asked a question changes the meaning
of the question.

This can easily be shown to apply to decision problem
instances as follows:

In that H.true and H.false are the wrong answer when
D calls H to do the opposite of whatever value that
either H returns.

Whereas exactly one of H1.true or H1.false is correct
for this exact same D.

This proves that the question: "Does your input halt?"
has a different meaning across the H and H1 pairs.

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