On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question. >>>>>>>
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
"Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question. >>>>>>>>>
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper* >>>>>>>>
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation? >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004) >>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can
be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
What correct Boolean value does H return for input D that has
been defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?
*Is isomorphic to this question*
USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$2@dont-email.me>
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave himself?" has no correct answer.
Every question that has been defined to have no correct
answer <is> an incorrect question:
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
was defined to be impossible.
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
USENET Message-ID: <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper* >>>>>>>>>>
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation? >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis >>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004) >>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim >>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other >>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation
can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test >>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the >>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017) >>>>>
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification. >>>>>
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
Nope. Strawman.
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the
question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper* >>>>>>>>>>
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation? >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis >>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004) >>>>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim >>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other >>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation
can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test >>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the >>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017) >>>>>
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification. >>>>>
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
Nope. Strawman.
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this >>>>>>>>>>>> paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation? >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis >>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in >>>>>>>>>>> 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim >>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other >>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation >>>>>>>>>> can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a >>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not >>>>>>>> properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test >>>>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the >>>>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not >>>>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies >>>>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017) >>>>>>>
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is >>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
specification.
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a
PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
Nope. Strawman.
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
"Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
*Then you tell me what you think that means*
On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on
computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis >>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other >>>>>>>>>>>>> professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
Computation can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a >>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers. >>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is >>>>>>>>>> not properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test >>>>>>>>> exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the >>>>>>>>> test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not >>>>>>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies >>>>>>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017) >>>>>>>>>
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is >>>>>>>>> that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
specification.
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write a >>>>>>>> PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
Nope. Strawman.
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just to
ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
"Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
*Then you tell me what you think that means*
A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
number of steps.
Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
program can compute it).
Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a
Computation can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is >>>>>>>>>>>> not properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt >>>>>>>>>>> test
exists and then provides S as an example of a program >>>>>>>>>>> that the
test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not >>>>>>>>>>> even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies >>>>>>>>>>> in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: >>>>>>>>>>> 2017)
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are >>>>>>>>>>> saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable
specification.
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to write >>>>>>>>>> a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY RIGHT, >>>>>>>>>
What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
Nope. Strawman.
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just
to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
"Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
*Then you tell me what you think that means*
A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if there
exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs (like the
Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a finite
computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in a finite
number of steps.
Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program that
computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
program can compute it).
Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
Nope, not in this case.
It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
because their inputs are self-contradictory.
If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this. https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
On 1/28/2024 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthful
yes/no answer to the following question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal >>>>>>>>>>>>> halt test
exists and then provides S as an example of a program >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to
inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Stoddart: 2017)
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are >>>>>>>>>>>>> saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable >>>>>>>>>>>>> specification.
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>> write a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY >>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question: >>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
Nope. Strawman.
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not.
Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are just >>>>>>>> to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
"Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
*Then you tell me what you think that means*
A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if
there exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs
(like the Halting Property definition) but there does not exist a
finite computation that can compute that mapping for all inputs in >>>>>> a finite number of steps.
Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program
that computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs.
Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no
program can compute it).
Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
Nope, not in this case.
It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
because their inputs are self-contradictory.
Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will
either Halt or Not.
So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
"Self-Contradictory"
IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this.
If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
And what does Tarski have to do with "Halting" or "Computation Theory"?
(Well there is a connection, but deeper than you seem to understand)
Tarski concluded that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist
on the basis that this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true" ?
has no correct answer.
When the formalized Liar Paradox is the input to a decider decision
theory concludes that it is undecidable rather than incorrect.
On 1/28/2024 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthful
yes/no answer to the following question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two other
professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt test
exists and then provides S as an example of a program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Stoddart: 2017)
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification.
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> write a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are EXACTLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question: >>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer.
Nope. Strawman.
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is>
an incorrect question whether you understand this or not. >>>>>>>>>>>
Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are >>>>>>>>>> just to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
"Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
*Then you tell me what you think that means*
A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if
there exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to outputs >>>>>>>> (like the Halting Property definition) but there does not exist >>>>>>>> a finite computation that can compute that mapping for all
inputs in a finite number of steps.
Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a program >>>>>>>> that computes the answer in finite time for all possible inputs. >>>>>>>>
Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if no >>>>>>>> program can compute it).
Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they
are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions.
Nope, not in this case.
It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable
because their inputs are self-contradictory.
Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will
either Halt or Not.
So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
"Self-Contradictory"
IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this.
If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
And what does Tarski have to do with "Halting" or "Computation Theory"? >>>>
(Well there is a connection, but deeper than you seem to understand)
Tarski concluded that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist
on the basis that this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true" ?
has no correct answer.
When the formalized Liar Paradox is the input to a decider decision
theory concludes that it is undecidable rather than incorrect.
We were talking about the Halting Problem.
Since you do not understand how deciders works then you cannot
understand how halt decider work.
Decision theory concludes that undecidable decision problems prove
that a theory is incomplete when it cannot prove or refute syntactically correct expressions that are semantic nonsense.
"this sentence is not true" is a syntactically correct sentence
that is an semantically incorrect statement.
I owned LiarParadox.org for several years because many undecidable
decision problems are isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
Are you admitting you were wrong and shifting to another topic, or are
you just trapped and throwing up a Red Herring?
I'm goinf
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
yes/no answer to the following question:
Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question. >>>>>>>
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
professors express concurring opinions.
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be
"Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.
On 1/28/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:Tarski concluded that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist
On 1/28/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 5:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 2:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope. Strawman.
On 1/28/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott...
You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthful
yes/no answer to the following question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the question.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
After all these years this deserves academic credit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem's decider / input pair.
*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this paper*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me in 2004)
decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two other
professors express concurring opinions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation can be "Context Dependent"
Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers.
Which makes a similar error of thinking that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program is not properly defined.
The proof of the halting problem assumes a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universal halt test
exists and then provides S as an example of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program that the
test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not
even a conceptual object, and this is due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
in the specification of the halting function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Stoddart: 2017)
The clearest way to sum up what these three author's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification.
If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that it is impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write a PROGRAM that produces the results, you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY RIGHT,
Yes exactly like you cannot correctly answer this question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
Because it was defined to have no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable <is> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect question whether you understand this or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope, YOU don't understand what that means, because you are >>>>>>>>>>>> just to ignorant to know the meaning of the words.
"Every decision problem defined to be unsatisfiable"
*Then you tell me what you think that means*
A Decision problem is unsatisfied (and not just incorrect) if >>>>>>>>>> there exist a valid "mathmatical" mapping from inputs to
outputs (like the Halting Property definition) but there does >>>>>>>>>> not exist a finite computation that can compute that mapping >>>>>>>>>> for all inputs in a finite number of steps.
Satisfiable (in computation theory) means there exist a
program that computes the answer in finite time for all
possible inputs.
Correct Question means there exist a correct answer (even if >>>>>>>>>> no program can compute it).
Yes AND sometimes some inputs are not computable because they >>>>>>>>> are self-contradictory, thus isomorphic to incorrect questions. >>>>>>>>>
Nope, not in this case.
It is a verified fact that some decision problems are undecidable >>>>>>> because their inputs are self-contradictory.
Input are just symbols. Perhaps a property can be defined in a
self-contradictory way, but Halting is not, as all programs will
either Halt or Not.
So, Halting can not be an "improper" question due to being
"Self-Contradictory"
IF you want to claim it is, show the ACTUAL PROGRAM that shows this. >>>>>>
If this proof was not way over your head you might understand this. >>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
And what does Tarski have to do with "Halting" or "Computation
Theory"?
(Well there is a connection, but deeper than you seem to understand) >>>>>
on the basis that this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "this sentence is not true" ?
has no correct answer.
When the formalized Liar Paradox is the input to a decider decision
theory concludes that it is undecidable rather than incorrect.
We were talking about the Halting Problem.
Since you do not understand how deciders works then you cannot
understand how halt decider work.
Decision theory concludes that undecidable decision problems prove
that a theory is incomplete when it cannot prove or refute syntactically >>> correct expressions that are semantic nonsense.
"this sentence is not true" is a syntactically correct sentence
that is an semantically incorrect statement.
I owned LiarParadox.org for several years because many undecidable
decision problems are isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.
In other words, because you don't understand how logic works, you have
come up with cockamamie theorys of how it should work.
Try and show how a decider can correctly decide the truth value
of the formalized version of this: "this sentence is not true".
The problem is not my lack of understanding of logic the problem
it your lack of understanding of the philosophy of logic.
When I point out incoherence in aspects of logic you construe this
as my error because logic remains just the way that you memorized it.
You have zero deep understanding of the underlying epistemology
of the aspect of logic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:58:26 |
| Calls: | 6,706 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,350,059 |