Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid

On 6/5/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 1:33 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 05 Jun 2024 12:09:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/5/2024 12:03 PM, John Smith wrote:

On 5/06/24 04:16, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:12 PM, John Smith wrote:

On 5/06/24 04:05, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
Let's ask Carol. If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no” is the
correct answer for her, so “yes” is incorrect. If she says “no”, she's
saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”, which is her answer. We
are assuming for this and all subsequent questions that the only
acceptable answers are “yes” and “no”, and in this case, both answers
are incorrect. Carol cannot answer the question correctly. Now let's ask
Dave. He says “no”, and he is correct because Carol cannot correctly
answer “no”. So (6) is subjective because it is a consistent,
satisfiable specification for some agent (anyone other than Carol), and
an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification for some agent (Carol).

 

But that's like running a different machine. That's not interesting.
We wanted to see a machine that can answer ALL questions.

 To expect a correct answer to an incorrect question has
always been very stupid.

But there is nothing "incorrect" about the Halting Question, it always has a specific and precise answer (even if we don't know it) and it has some very useful cases that we would like to be able to solve.
So, what do you see actually wrong with that actual question?
The problem is you don't understand the field enough to really understand what the question means, and that is what gets you in trouble, you guess (incorrectly) about too many parts of the theory, that you just show your total ignorance of the field.

 

This one was
specifically constructed to be unanswerable by this machine. The
equivalent translation would be "Can YOU answer No?".
>