On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified
>>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
>>>>>>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
>>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
>>>> D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>
>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>> for this decider.
>>>
>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>
>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>
>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>
>
> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
> self-contradictory for this decider.
>
> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>

On 10/18/23 12:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
>>>>>>>>>>> simplified it for
>>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach
>>>>>>>>>>> a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
>>>>>>>>>>> original meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
>>>>> input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that
>>>>> H returns
>>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>>
>>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>
>>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>>
>>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>>
>>
>> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
>> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
>> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
>> self-contradictory for this decider.
>>
>> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
>> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
>> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>>
>
> I told the computer science professor about
> the loophole you found in his work.
>

On 10/17/2023 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
>>>>>>>>>>> simplified it for
>>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
>>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
>>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach
>>>>>>>>>>> a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists
>>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
>>>>>>>>>>> original meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
>>>>> input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that
>>>>> H returns
>>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>>
>>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>> for this decider.
>>>>
>>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>
>>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>>
>>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>>
>>
>> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
>> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
>> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
>> self-contradictory for this decider.
>>
>> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
>> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
>> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>>
>
> I told the computer science professor about
> the loophole you found in his work.
>

On 10/18/23 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2023 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>> simplified it for
>>>>>>>>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not true.” is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to
>>>>>>>>>>>> this self-
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
>>>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>>>> program D
>>>>>>>>>>>> will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance*
>>>>>>>>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be an
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We could also say that input D that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It actually means that no correct Boolean return value
>>>>>>>>>>>> exists for this
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> original meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
>>>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes,
>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
>>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> questions*
>>>>>>>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
>>>>>>>>>> mandatory
>>>>>>>>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a very simple principle here:
>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
>>>>>>>>> because there is something wrong with the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
>>>>>>>>> to program H that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>> H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
>>>>>>>> none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
>>>>>>>> behavior of any D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
>>>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
>>>>>> input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value
>>>>>> that H returns
>>>>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
>>>>>
>>>>> For every halting problem decider/input pair there
>>>>> is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
>>>>> by this decider because this input to this pair
>>>>> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>>>> for this decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> The some other decider can answer some other question
>>>>> is no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
>>>>> to this decider is an entirely different question than this
>>>>> same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
>>>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>>>
>>>> Does machine D halt on input D?
>>>> Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
>>>> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
>>>> and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
>>>>
>>>> That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
>>>> proves that these are two different questions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
>>> value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
>>> D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
>>> that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
>>> self-contradictory for this decider.
>>>
>>> When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
>>> <is> self-contradictory in the same way that
>>> "This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
>>>
>>
>> I told the computer science professor about
>> the loophole you found in his work.
>>
>
> Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question when posed
> to Jack.
>