XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory
On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
the full semantics of the question <bla>
Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"
Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.
Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is
"yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.
Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that
the wrong answer is the right one:
Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even
though P(P) halts?"
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a
complete understanding.
Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
from H to mean either
(a) that P(P) does not halt <or>
(b) P(P) specifically targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
value that H returns.
When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.
When H returns 0 for input P means either that P does not halt or
P specifically targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
value that H returns not even people with little understanding can
say that this is contradictory.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)