Re: The error of the halting problem

On 2024-06-04 02:58:06 +0000, olcott said:

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.

 ...
 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

H returns only one value about D,D. Therefore D needs to contradict
only one value.

"This sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer in English.

A change of subject is not a valid refutation.
--
Mikko