On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false for
>>>>> everyone because the exact same word-for-word question is false for
>>>>> you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what it is
>>>> talking about, so the question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2} pairs
>>> such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>> returns.
>>>
>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value that
>>> corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element
>>> does the opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a correct
>> Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>
>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>> single instance of the question in view.
>>
>
> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.

You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.

You are just proving that you don't understand how correct logic works.

>
>
>> That is exactly the same as your arguement about the question: "Are
>> you a gitl?". The fact that some people will answer yes and some no
>> doesn't make it a contradictory question, because each instance of the
>> question is asking about a different subject.
>>
>> Thus, you haven't shown an actual problem with the Halting Question
>> (Does the machine described by the input Halt?) just that it is
>> impossible to find a answer, which is EXACTLY what the Halting Theorem
>> states, so you are not refuting its proof.
>>
>> You just don't seem to understand what you are saying because you have
>> gaslit yourself with your false ideas.
>

On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false for
>>>>>> everyone because the exact same word-for-word question is false
>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what it is
>>>>> talking about, so the question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2} pairs
>>>> such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>> returns.
>>>>
>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value that
>>>> corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element
>>>> does the opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a correct
>>> Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>>> single instance of the question in view.
>>>
>>
>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>
> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>

I asked a tautology and you denied it.

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

On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false for
>>>>>>> everyone because the exact same word-for-word question is false
>>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what it is
>>>>>> talking about, so the question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2} pairs
>>>>> such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>> returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value that
>>>>> corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element
>>>>> does the opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a correct
>>>> Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>>>> single instance of the question in view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>
>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>
>
> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>
>

WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse point out
that it doesn't prove what you want it to?

I think you don't understand what you read and write.

Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION, but a
STATEMENT.

You seem to have category errors built into your brain.

On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false for
>>>>>>>> everyone because the exact same word-for-word question is false
>>>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what it
>>>>>>> is talking about, so the question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2} pairs
>>>>>> such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value that
>>>>>> corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element
>>>>>> does the opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a correct
>>>>> Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>>>>> single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>
>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>
>>
>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>
>>
>
> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse point out
> that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>
> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>
> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION, but a
> STATEMENT.
>
> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.

I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.

It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are black
and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.

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

On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false for
>>>>>>>>> everyone because the exact same word-for-word question is false
>>>>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what it
>>>>>>>> is talking about, so the question veries based on who it is said
>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2} pairs
>>>>>>> such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value that
>>>>>>> corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element
>>>>>>> does the opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>>>>>> single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>
>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse point
>> out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>
>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>
>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION, but
>> a STATEMENT.
>>
>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>
> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>
> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are black
> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>
>

So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which are
just lies.

Note, you didn't give the ACTUAL question you asked, because if you did,
it could be shown that you weren't asking what you are claiming you were
asking.

This is just showing how ingrained lying is into you communication.

If you want to quote my actual lie, it would be appreciated, and if I
was actually incorrect, I will correct my statement.

I suspect, you will find that I didn't actually deny what you thought I
was denying, but the false assumption you were deriving from the statement.

You like saying the equivalent of:

1 + 1 = 2
Therefore, Sam is a big Cat.

Using the quoting of an actual true statement as support for an
statement that is actually unrelated statement (maybe that sounds a bit
related).

On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false for
>>>>>>>>>> everyone because the exact same word-for-word question is
>>>>>>>>>> false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what it
>>>>>>>>> is talking about, so the question veries based on who it is
>>>>>>>>> said to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>>>>>>> single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse point
>>> out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>
>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>
>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION, but
>>> a STATEMENT.
>>>
>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>
>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>
>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are black
>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>
>>
>
> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which are
> just lies.
>

>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>> element returns.

Are all the black cats in Australia black?

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

On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false for
>>>>>>>>>>> everyone because the exact same word-for-word question is
>>>>>>>>>>> false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what
>>>>>>>>>> it is talking about, so the question veries based on who it is
>>>>>>>>>> said to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>>>>>>>> single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse point
>>>> out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>
>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>
>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION,
>>>> but a STATEMENT.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>
>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>
>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are black
>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which are
>> just lies.
>>
>
> >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
> >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
> >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
> >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
> >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
> >>>>>>>> element returns.
>
> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>
>

So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is always
true in every situation.

I guess you are just proving your ignorance.

Note, to this I replied:

>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't a
>>>>>>>> single instance of the question in view.

So I didn't say the statement was FALSE, I said it didn't prove what you
wanted it to prove.

The fact that no TMD1 can exist that gives the right answer does NOT
mean the question is contradictory, but that the problem of designing a
halt decider is impossible.

Which EXACT question, including context, showed contradictory results.
Remember if you change TMD1, you change TMD2

Or, do you think the question "Are you a girl?" is a contradictory sentence.

GAME - SET - MATCH

You are proved to be a LIAR and an idiot that can't read normal English.

On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false
>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone because the exact same word-for-word question
>>>>>>>>>>>> is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what
>>>>>>>>>>> it is talking about, so the question veries based on who it
>>>>>>>>>>> is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't
>>>>>>>>> a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse point
>>>>> out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION,
>>>>> but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>
>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>
>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are black
>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which are
>>> just lies.
>>>
>>
>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>  >>>>>>>>
>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>
>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>
>>
>
> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is always
> true in every situation.
>

So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?

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

On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone because the exact same word-for-word question
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference what
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is talking about, so the question veries based on who it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there isn't
>>>>>>>>>> a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION,
>>>>>> but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are black
>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which
>>>> are just lies.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>
>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>> always true in every situation.
>>
>
> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>

Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.

What is ACTUALY wrong with my statement?

You are just proving yourself to be a pathological lying idiot who
doesn't know how to use any logic.

You think throwing insults actually can prove an arguement.

At least I throw my insults BECAUSE I have proven my arguement, so it
isn't fallacious reasoning (like you use).

On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone because the exact same word-for-word question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it is talking about, so the question veries based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION,
>>>>>>> but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>> black
>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which
>>>>> are just lies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>
>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>> always true in every situation.
>>>
>>
>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>
>
> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>
> What is ACTUALY wrong with my statement?
>
> You are just proving yourself to be a pathological lying idiot who
> doesn't know how to use any logic.
>
> You think throwing insults actually can prove an arguement.
>
> At least I throw my insults BECAUSE I have proven my arguement, so it
> isn't fallacious reasoning (like you use).
>

In other words when I am obviously correct you spout out pure ad hominem
because that is all that you have when you know that I am correct.

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

On 6/24/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone because the exact same word-for-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it is talking about, so the question veries based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>>> black
>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which
>>>>>> are just lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>>> always true in every situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>
>>
>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>
>> What is ACTUALY wrong with my statement?
>>
>> You are just proving yourself to be a pathological lying idiot who
>> doesn't know how to use any logic.
>>
>> You think throwing insults actually can prove an arguement.
>>
>> At least I throw my insults BECAUSE I have proven my arguement, so it
>> isn't fallacious reasoning (like you use).
>>
>
> In other words when I am obviously correct you spout out pure ad hominem
> because that is all that you have when you know that I am correct.
>
>

Nope, and the fact you can't actually point out where you see the error
means you are just spouting out pure LIES. Specify the actual error you
claim or you are just admitting your lock of basis.

Note, the fact that you don't even know the meaning of ad hominem shows
how stupid you are. I have never said you are wrong because you are
stupid, (that would be ad hominem) I show you are stupid because you
insist on wrong statements (that is just applying definitions)

You show you have no useful knowledge of how to do logic.

To you "Obviously correct" means that you think it must be correct, even
if it is actually wrong. Since you appear to have lost touch with
reality, this doesn't mean a lot

On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone because the exact same word-for-word question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it is talking about, so the question veries based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a QUESTION,
>>>>>>> but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>> black
>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which
>>>>> are just lies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>
>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>> always true in every situation.
>>>
>>
>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>
>
> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>

Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has property P.

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

On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone because the exact same word-for-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it is talking about, so the question veries based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>>> black
>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which
>>>>>> are just lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a value
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>>> always true in every situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>
>>
>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>
>
> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has property P.
>
>

So?

I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that does the
opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean the Halting
Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The
Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never
gives it.

Thus, your claim that the Halting Question is just like the Liar's
paradox is a LIE, and your arguement is shown to be unsound.

You just keep fighting strawmen, and losing.

On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for everyone because the exact same word-for-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it is talking about, so the question veries based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>>>> black
>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements which
>>>>>>> are just lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>> value
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that
>>>>>> each
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>>>> always true in every situation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>
>>
>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has property P.
>>
>>
>
> So?
>
> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that does the
> opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean the Halting
> Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The
> Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never
> gives it.
>
Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that corresponds to
the actual behavior of TMD2?

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

On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for everyone because the exact same word-for-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it is talking about, so the question veries based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>> are black
>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements
>>>>>>>> which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input that
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>>>>> always true in every situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has property P.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So?
>>
>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that does
>> the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean the Halting
>> Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The
>> Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1
>> never gives it.
>>
> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that corresponds to
> the actual behavior of TMD2?
>
>

That a problem with the programmer, or the fact that the function being
asked for isn't computable. It is NOT an indication that the problem is
incorrect.

The fact that you can't create a program to compute the right value is a
perfectly valid case, as computers can't computer everything.

In fact, if you look at the number of possible input -> output mappings
that can exist, and the number that are computable, the fraction that is
computable is infinitesimal, so the fact that a given one isn't
computable isn't a surprise.

Did you look at the video I linked to the other day, it has a nice
simple explanation about these sorts of problems, and how Hilbert found
out his ideas (which you seem to share a lot of) just didn't work.

On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for everyone because the exact same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it is talking about, so the question veries based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong verse
>>>>>>>>>>> point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>> are black
>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements
>>>>>>>>> which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>> TMD2}
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>> that each
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>>>>>> always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>> property P.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that does
>>> the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean the
>>> Halting Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a
>>> problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is just
>>> that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>
>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that corresponds to
>> the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>
>>
>
> That a problem with the programmer,

In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?

On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for everyone because the exact same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> verse point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>> are black
>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a
>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements
>>>>>>>>>> which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>> TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns
>>>>>>>>> a value
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>> that each
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that this
>>>>>>>>> TM1
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that is
>>>>>>>> always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>> property P.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that does
>>>> the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean the
>>>> Halting Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a
>>>> problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is
>>>> just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>
>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that corresponds to
>>> the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That a problem with the programmer,
>
> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?

On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for everyone because the exact same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> verse point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>> are black
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a
>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements
>>>>>>>>>>> which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>>> TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns
>>>>>>>>>> a value
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>> that each
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>> this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that
>>>>>>>>> is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>>> property P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that
>>>>> does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean the
>>>>> Halting Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a
>>>>> problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is
>>>>> just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>
>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that corresponds
>>>> to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>
>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>
> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see below)
>
>
>>
>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>
>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>
> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid program.

On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for everyone because the exact same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verse point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements
>>>>>>>>>>>> which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>>> that each
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that
>>>>>>>>>> is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are black?
>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>>>> property P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that
>>>>>> does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean
>>>>>> the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2
>>>>>> has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer,
>>>>>> it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that corresponds
>>>>> to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>
>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>
>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see below)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>
>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>
>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid program.
>
> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.

On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be false for everyone because the exact same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of {TM1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a value that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each TMD2 element does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verse point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you statements
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2 input
>>>>>>>>>>>> that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT that
>>>>>>>>>>> is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>>>>>> black?
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>>>>> property P.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that
>>>>>>> does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean
>>>>>>> the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2
>>>>>>> has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer,
>>>>>>> it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that corresponds
>>>>>> to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>
>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>
>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see below)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>
>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>
>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid program.
>>
>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>
> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL PROGRAMS.
>
>>
>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>

On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be false for everyone because the exact same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of whatever Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a correct Halt Decider, not that the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verse point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>>>>>>> black?
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>>>>>> property P.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that
>>>>>>>> does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean
>>>>>>>> the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2
>>>>>>>> has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer,
>>>>>>>> it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see below)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>
>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid program.
>>>
>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>
>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL PROGRAMS.
>>
>>>
>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>
>
> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to any
> input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that X returns?
> (a) Yes
> (b) No
> (c) Richard is a Troll
>

On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?" must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be false for everyone because the exact same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of whatever Boolean value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make a correct Halt Decider, not that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a single instance of the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verse point out that it doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>>>>>>>> black?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>>>>>>> property P.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2 that
>>>>>>>>> does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that this mean
>>>>>>>>> the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the behaivor of TMD2
>>>>>>>>> has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct
>>>>>>>>> answer, it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see below)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid
>>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>
>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL PROGRAMS.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>
>>
>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to any
>> input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that X returns?
>> (a) Yes
>> (b) No
>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>
>
> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is trying
> to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to use decider X
> and crates a value of property P opposite of what X says.
>

On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be false for everyone because the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of the value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make a correct Halt Decider, not that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a single instance of the question in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong verse point out that it doesn't prove what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>>>>>>>> property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2
>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that
>>>>>>>>>> this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the
>>>>>>>>>> behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS
>>>>>>>>>> has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see
>>>>>> below)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid
>>>>>> program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>
>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL PROGRAMS.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to any
>>> input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that X returns?
>>> (a) Yes
>>> (b) No
>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>
>>
>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is
>> trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to use
>> decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of what X says.
>>
>
> How would you say the question more clearly?

On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be false for everyone because the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its TMD2 input that each TMD2 element does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opposite of the value that this TM1 element
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make a correct Halt Decider, not that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, there isn't a single instance of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong verse point out that it doesn't prove what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q has
>>>>>>>>>>>> property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that
>>>>>>>>>>> this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the
>>>>>>>>>>> behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS
>>>>>>>>>>> has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see
>>>>>>> below)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid
>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL PROGRAMS.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to any
>>>> input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that X
>>>> returns?
>>>> (a) Yes
>>>> (b) No
>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is
>>> trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to use
>>> decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of what X says.
>>>
>>
>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>
> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many words,
> clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>

On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be false for everyone because the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, there isn't a single instance of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong verse point out that it doesn't prove what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS
>>>>>>>>>>>> has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see
>>>>>>>> below)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid
>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to
>>>>> any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that X
>>>>> returns?
>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>> (b) No
>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is
>>>> trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to use
>>>> decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of what X says.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>
>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many words,
>> clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>
>
> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could be said
> more clearly.
>