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.
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.
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben 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*
*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.
On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben 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*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.
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.
But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H saying
it doesn't is correct?
Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
from H to mean either
So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/
OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR
On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben 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*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.
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.
But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H saying
it doesn't is correct?
Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
from H to mean either
So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/
OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR
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.
This is the same thing as the Facebook post where two people are looking
at the same symbol that is a "9" or a "6" depending on your point of
view.
On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben 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*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.
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.
But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
saying it doesn't is correct?
Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
from H to mean either
So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/
OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR
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.
Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about worki g
on the halting problem.
On 6/20/2023 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben 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*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say.
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.
But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
saying it doesn't is correct?
Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0 >>>>> from H to mean either
So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/
OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR
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.
Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about worki
g on the halting problem.
Try and explain how any H can be defined that can be embedded
within Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
If it is impossible to do this then you have affirmed that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a
self-contradictory input to embedded_H.
If it is possible to do this then explain the details of how it is done.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
Once we know that the halting problem question is an incorrect question
then we can transform it into a correct question.
On 6/20/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2023 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben 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*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say. >>>>>
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.
But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
saying it doesn't is correct?
Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0 >>>>>> from H to mean either
So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/
OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR
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.
Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about
worki g on the halting problem.
Try and explain how any H can be defined that can be embedded
within Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
It can't, that is what the Theorem Proves.
That is because the Halting Function just isn't computable,
If it is impossible to do this then you have affirmed that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a
self-contradictory input to embedded_H.
Nope, because it just doesn't exist.
Since no H can exist that meets the requirements, an H that meets the requirements doesn't exist, and so no H^ exists.
If it is possible to do this then explain the details of how it is done.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
Once we know that the halting problem question is an incorrect question
then we can transform it into a correct question.
But it isn't an "Incorrect Question", but the definition of what a
"Correct Question" is.
Remember, the Question of the Halting Problem Theorem is, Can an H exist
that meets the requirements.
This Question has an answer of NO.
On 6/20/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2023 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2023 3:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/23 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben 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*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
No, YOU DO by claiming your words don't actually mean what they say. >>>>>>
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.
But since P(P) (now D(D) ) does halt, how do you explain that H
saying it doesn't is correct?
Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value >>>>>>> of 0
from H to mean either
So you are admitting to LYIHG about the problem you are doing/
OLCOTT --- ADMITTED LIAR
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.
Which isn't the Halting Problem criteria, so you are lying about
worki g on the halting problem.
Try and explain how any H can be defined that can be embedded
within Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
It can't, that is what the Theorem Proves.
That is because the Halting Function just isn't computable,
If it is impossible to do this then you have affirmed that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a
self-contradictory input to embedded_H.
Nope, because it just doesn't exist.
Since no H can exist that meets the requirements, an H that meets the
requirements doesn't exist, and so no H^ exists.
If it is possible to do this then explain the details of how it is done. >>>
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
Once we know that the halting problem question is an incorrect question
then we can transform it into a correct question.
But it isn't an "Incorrect Question", but the definition of what a
"Correct Question" is.
Remember, the Question of the Halting Problem Theorem is, Can an H
exist that meets the requirements.
This Question has an answer of NO.
That is exactly analogous to:
(1) Can anyone correctly answer this question:
(2) Will your answer to this question be no?
The answer to (1) is "no" only because (2) is self-contradictory.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 124:42:54 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,769 |