XPost: sci.logic

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, and that it what the
Halting Theorem proves. So you are just admitting that you are wrong to complain about the Halting Proglem.

If by "Unsatisfiable" you mean that the question the prospective Halt
Decider is asked doesn't have an answer, you are wrong.

EVERY Program/Input pair will have a correct answer for the Halting
Question, as the program will either Halt or Not. Thus the question is
"Valid". This template just produces an input that a given decider will
get wrong.

Note, The specification being "Unsatisfiable" in the sense that no
program can be created, does NOT make the specification "Inconsistant"
(which means there is either no answer or multiple answer when only one
is allowed to a given question).

Stoddart is just showing his ignorance. His claim that "S is not a
program at all" is just a false statement or making an improper nit-pic
between the description (detailed enough to be followed to contruct the
program in question) and the actual code of the program that derives
from the specification.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

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.

Does the

What correct Boolean value does H return for input D that has
been defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?

Which ISN'T the Halting Question.

*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.

Yes, because as the Halting Theorem has proven, The machine you are
defining as your H, just doens't exsits, just like the Barber doesn't exist.

Every question that has been defined to have no correct
answer <is> an incorrect question:

But the actual question, has a correct answer.

Change your quesiton to: What answer should a correct halt decider
return to be correct for the input designed to do the opposiite of a
particular claimed Halt Decider return?

And we HAV# a correct answer, whatever is the opposite of what that
decider produced (or non-halting if it doesn't answer).

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.

FALSE. The genesis of the Halting Problem predated the discovery that it
was impossible, and was in fact hoped and even presumed to be possible.

Alan Turing just showed that there was a particular input that could be
created that was impossible for a given machine to answer correctly.

(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.

So, you are confusing Problems with Questions.

The Halting Question is: Does the Machine and Input described by your
input Halt when run

The Halting Problem: Can you make a machine that computes this answer
for every possible input.


The Question clearly has a correct answer for every possible machine /
Input combination, as the Halting Property obeys the principle of the
excluded middle and non-contradictory. (it is impossible for a given
machine / input to be either BOTH Halting and non-halting or neither
Halting and Non-Halting. One MUST occur and excludes the other (since
any machine that doesn't Halt is defined to be Non-Halting).

…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.

UNSOUND & INVALID LOGIC since it uses false premsise and invalid logic (Problems are different then Quesitons)

USENET Message-ID: <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 1/28/24 22:22, 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.

True or false: Every sequence is either finite or infinite.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

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.

A QUESTION is incorrect, if it does not have a possible answer. Thus,
"What is the Truth Value of the Liar's Paradox" in an incorrect question.

An UNSATISFIABLE problem in Compuation Theory is a Problem that asks if
you can build a Machine that computes the answer to a Question for all
possible inputs.

That doesn't mean the Question doesn't have an answer for all possible
inputs, just that we can not build a computaton structure that gives
that answer in a finite number of steps.

The Halting Question has, as I have explained, a correct answer for
every possible program/input combination, as that compuation will either
finish in finite time or not.

The Halting Question is shown to be uncomputable, and thus the Halting
PRoblem unsatisfiable, because for any machine you might try to claim is
a solution to the problem, there is an input that it get wrong.

Thus, Halting has a valid question, but in uncomputable.

You just seem unable to distinguish between these seperate facts,
because you are just too ignorant about what they actually mean.

You are just proving yourself to be an Insane and Ignorant Hypocritical Pathological Lying Idiot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

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.

Inputs are just strings that represent programs, and programs are self contained blocks that always have a defined behavior.

No posibility for an actual PROGRAM to be "self-contradictory".

You get into your "Contradiction" by ignoring that H is a PROGRAM, and a
piece of the PROGRAM of D, and thus, must have defined behavior, so
"Unless" or "Must" (as you are trying to use them) don't really have
meaning.

A program does what it is programmed to do, and that result will either
be correct or incorrect.

Please try to show me a program that doesn't have a correct answer to
the question: "Does this program halt when run?"

(Note, Not your non-equivalent variant of correct simulation by H)

It can be a D built on an H, but you have to define the H.

And "Get the right answer" is NOT a programatic step.

If you want to specify until a such and such condition occurs, you need
to spell them out, not just "Correct Halting Patterns"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

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)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

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:

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.

In other words, because you don't understand how logic works, you have
come up with cockamamie theorys of how it should work.

You say I don't know how Deciders work, but it is you how doesn't know that.

When you tried to write a simple Turing Machine to be a decider, you
totally failed and got hung up on irrelevent details about things like
what character set encoding the tape should be in.

The statement you call "semantic nonsense" (if you are refering to
Godel) is a very semantically meaningful statement (that you just don't understand, so it has no meaning to you) that there does not exist a
natural number g that statisfies a particular Primative Recursive
Relationship. That sentence clearly has semantic meaning, at least as
much as ANY mathematical statement has "semantic" meaning

Note, you keep on saying that people expected the Liar's Paradox to have
a truth value or that the truth predicate was being applied to that
statement, but that was never actually done.

Tarski shows that give an assumption of the computable predicate for
truth, that by the rules previously shown (that you clearly don't
understand) allow him to DERIVE that the Liar's Paradox would have a
truth value, and from that shows that there can not be such a computable predicate.

It is clear that you understanding of logic just can't handle the
concept of "Meta-Theory", likely because your understanding of logic
just doesn't understand what a formal logic system is.

I will also note that it seems that most of your Isomorphisms" are based
on the unacceptable assumption that Truth must be provable. While you
can build systems on such a definition, all the theories you have been
looking at have prerequisites that such a system can not meet. (Because
it strictly limits what logic you can allow into the system).

In other words, you are just proving to the world that you are just a
stupid crackpot. Maybe you can find some people that you think agree
with enough of your theory to make you happy, but none of that is actual
proof.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-01-28 19:25:42 +0000, olcott said:

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.

That is a reasonable way to say it but only if you accept that there
is a proof that the specification is unsatisfiable. If you reject all
proposed proofs you must say that it is an open question whether the
halting problem is defined with unsatisriable specification.

Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 1/28/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

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.

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".

Never said it could.

The problem is not my lack of understanding of logic the problem
it your lack of understanding of the philosophy of logic.

No, YOU don't understand logic, or even language.

You think that "This statement is not True" is identical in meaning to
"This statement is not provable", this is false, so you don't understand
logic,

Note also, many aspects of the general philosophy of logic don't
actually apply to Formal Systems of Logic, as the decisions they discuss
have been decided, fixed, and locked down in the formal syatem. If you
want to change it, you can, but then you are in a DIFFERENT formal
system, and anything done isn't applicable to the original system.

This is something that appears to be foreign to you.

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.

No, you keep on going to Red Herrings, and never answer the actual
questions asked, probably because you know you can't

You have zero deep understanding of the underlying epistemology
of the aspect of logic.

Nope, YOU do, and are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)