On 2/18/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/02/24 02:28, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/24 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-18 01:40:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/17/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
On 17/02/24 16:01, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2024 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-16 22:06:41 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2024 3:55 PM, immibis wrote:
Show me a sequence that is neither finite nor infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>It seems that you still can't grasp the notion of
yes/no questions having no correct yes/no answer.
It seems that Olcott doesn't understand that there
are questions that are not yes/no question.
My primary point (since 2004) is that any yes/no
question defined to have no correct yes/no answer
is an incorrect question.
Can Olcott compute the square root of a pickle?
is an incorrect question
but the answer is:
no
You just flat out are not paying attention.
What would you expect someone who was paying attention to see?
There is such a thing as incorrect yes/no questions that must
be rejected as semantically unsound because they have been
defined such that both yes and no are the wrong answer.
Bu, "Does the Computation described by this input Halt?"
*IS MORE VAGUE THAN*
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
"This sentence is not true."
*Increasing specificity*
(1) Says something about something.
(2) Says something about some sentence.
(3) Says that something is not true.
(4) Says that some sentence is not true.
(5) Says that itself is not true.
But is isn't the question being asked, as the compuation that is
deciding is H, and the input is not just a description of H.
Generically:
"Does the Computation described by this input Halt?"
That's right. Does it halt?
Specifically Ȟ is being asked:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description?
No, it's a different description.
// *Original Linz H with simpler syntax*
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
H correctly transitions to H.qy
// *The self-contradictory version of H*
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Neither Yes nor No is the correct answer.
On 2/19/2024 12:29 AM, immibis wrote:
On 19/02/24 07:11, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/02/24 02:28, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/24 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-18 01:40:47 +0000, olcott said:There is such a thing as incorrect yes/no questions that must >>>>>>>>> be rejected as semantically unsound because they have been
On 2/17/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
On 17/02/24 16:01, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2024 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-16 22:06:41 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2024 3:55 PM, immibis wrote:It seems that Olcott doesn't understand that there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are questions that are not yes/no question.
Show me a sequence that is neither finite nor infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems that you still can't grasp the notion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no questions having no correct yes/no answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My primary point (since 2004) is that any yes/no
question defined to have no correct yes/no answer
is an incorrect question.
Can Olcott compute the square root of a pickle?
is an incorrect question
but the answer is:
no
You just flat out are not paying attention.
What would you expect someone who was paying attention to see? >>>>>>>>>
defined such that both yes and no are the wrong answer.
Bu, "Does the Computation described by this input Halt?"
*IS MORE VAGUE THAN*
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
"This sentence is not true."
*Increasing specificity*
(1) Says something about something.
(2) Says something about some sentence.
(3) Says that something is not true.
(4) Says that some sentence is not true.
(5) Says that itself is not true.
But is isn't the question being asked, as the compuation that is
deciding is H, and the input is not just a description of H.
Generically:
"Does the Computation described by this input Halt?"
That's right. Does it halt?
Specifically Ȟ is being asked:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description?
No, it's a different description.
// *Original Linz H with simpler syntax*
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
H correctly transitions to H.qy
// *The self-contradictory version of H*
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Neither Yes nor No is the correct answer.
It is trivial to change any machine description to a different
description of a different machine which always returns the same
result as the original machine for any input.
*H and its self-contradictory*
*version Ȟ prove that I am correct*
On 2/18/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/02/24 02:28, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/24 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2024 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-18 01:40:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/17/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
On 17/02/24 16:01, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2024 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-16 22:06:41 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2024 3:55 PM, immibis wrote:
Show me a sequence that is neither finite nor infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>It seems that you still can't grasp the notion of
yes/no questions having no correct yes/no answer.
It seems that Olcott doesn't understand that there
are questions that are not yes/no question.
My primary point (since 2004) is that any yes/no
question defined to have no correct yes/no answer
is an incorrect question.
Can Olcott compute the square root of a pickle?
is an incorrect question
but the answer is:
no
You just flat out are not paying attention.
What would you expect someone who was paying attention to see?
There is such a thing as incorrect yes/no questions that must
be rejected as semantically unsound because they have been
defined such that both yes and no are the wrong answer.
Bu, "Does the Computation described by this input Halt?"
*IS MORE VAGUE THAN*
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
"This sentence is not true."
*Increasing specificity*
(1) Says something about something.
(2) Says something about some sentence.
(3) Says that something is not true.
(4) Says that some sentence is not true.
(5) Says that itself is not true.
But is isn't the question being asked, as the compuation that is
deciding is H, and the input is not just a description of H.
Generically:
"Does the Computation described by this input Halt?"
That's right. Does it halt?
Specifically Ȟ is being asked:
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine description?
No, it's a different description.
// *Original Linz H with simpler syntax*
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qy // H applied to ⟨H⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ ⊢* H.qn // H applied to ⟨H⟩ does not halt
H correctly transitions to H.qy
// *The self-contradictory version of H*
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
Neither Yes nor No is the correct answer.
On 2/19/2024 1:06 AM, immibis wrote:
H and its self-contradictory version Ȟ do not prove that some
sequences aren't finite or infinite.
When I make a point dishonest people change the subject.
*It is true that Ȟ <is> the self-contradictory version of H*
The price of tea in China will not change this.
On 2/19/2024 6:11 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/02/24 17:02, olcott wrote:
On 2/19/2024 1:06 AM, immibis wrote:
H and its self-contradictory version Ȟ do not prove that some
sequences aren't finite or infinite.
When I make a point dishonest people change the subject.
*It is true that Ȟ <is> the self-contradictory version of H*
The price of tea in China will not change this.
The subject is whether D(D) has a finite or infinite execution sequence.
The subject is why can't a halt decider exist?
On 2/19/2024 7:15 PM, immibis wrote:
On 20/02/24 01:21, olcott wrote:
On 2/19/2024 6:11 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/02/24 17:02, olcott wrote:
On 2/19/2024 1:06 AM, immibis wrote:
H and its self-contradictory version Ȟ do not prove that some
sequences aren't finite or infinite.
When I make a point dishonest people change the subject.
*It is true that Ȟ <is> the self-contradictory version of H*
The price of tea in China will not change this.
The subject is whether D(D) has a finite or infinite execution
sequence.
The subject is why can't a halt decider exist?
If a halt decider exists, then D(D) has a finite or infinite execution
sequence.
We can equally determine that no baker exists because no baker
can bake an angel food cakes using only house bricks for ingredients.
When we ask: What can no baker exists? The answer is that the problem definition is incorrect.
On 2/19/2024 6:11 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/02/24 17:02, olcott wrote:
On 2/19/2024 1:06 AM, immibis wrote:
H and its self-contradictory version Ȟ do not prove that some
sequences aren't finite or infinite.
When I make a point dishonest people change the subject.
*It is true that Ȟ <is> the self-contradictory version of H*
The price of tea in China will not change this.
The subject is whether D(D) has a finite or infinite execution sequence.
The subject is why can't a halt decider exist?
Because semantically unsound inputs are not allowed to be rejected.
What can't a Truth predicate exist?
Because semantically unsound inputs are not allowed to be rejected.
The subject is whether D(D) has a finite or infinite execution
sequence.
immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:I know this one. It is based on an incorrect understanding of a lemma.
The subject is whether D(D) has a finite or infinite execution
sequence.
I case it helps you decide the value of the interactions you are having
(I know it can be fun) PO has stated categorically that the wrong answer
is the right one:
Me: Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts
And, so you know what you might be getting into he is prepared to say
things like this:
"the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
halting computation"
and, when pressed, he is even prepared to state categorical opposites
and not correct either:
"Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
times."
"No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many
times."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:55:11 |
| Calls: | 6,850 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,354 |
| Messages: | 5,415,306 |