Re: The error of the halting problem

Am Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:58:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/3/2024 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:

>
When H is asked a yes/no question where both answers are
contradicted by its input *IT IS A FREAKING RIGGED GAME*

>
But both answers aren't wrong. Remember, the question is built to
make a SPECIFIC decider wrong, and by its algorithm, it will give a
SPECIFIC answer to each SPECIFIC question.
>

You can't get away with that head game by pretending to not
understand what infinite an set of H/D pairs is.

>
But it doesn't matter.
>

It matters enormously. Once we fully understand that the limits of
computation were always a ruse then we can give computation the
priority that it truly deserves. It might be the life on earth is
killed off because we did not build a semantic lie detector quickly
enough.

 
But you are working on it wrong, because you just don't understand the
actual nature of truth.

 
Every expression X that is true on the basis of its meaning can be
proven untrue by a lack of a connection to the meaning that makes it
true. *You have understood this better than anyone else*

No. "true expressions can be proven untrue"? There are true but unprovable
sentences (see Gödel).

When D is defined to contradict both values that H returns then D is not
a truth bearer in H in the same way that the Liar Paradox "This sentence
is not true" is not a truth bearer in English.

--
joes