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

On 6/6/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 02:09:35 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 To call a question incorrect just because one stupid machine cannot
correctly answer it is stupid.
 

Whenever and yes/no question has no correct yes/no answer such
as What time is it (yes or no)?
It this sentence true or false "this sentence is not true" ???
Then the question is incorrect.
People that are woefully ignorant of context in linguistics
think that they can get away with simply ignoring how the
context of who is asked change the meaning of a question.
When one anchors their views in ignorance they anchor these
views in error.
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
     ...is a consistent, satisfiable specification for some
     agent (anyone other than Carol), and an inconsistent,
     unsatisfiable specification for some agent (Carol). (Hehner:2017)
If Carol answers “no” to this question she is saying that “no” is the
wrong answer, if she is correct then “no” is the right answer making her
necessarily incorrect.
If Carol answers “yes” to this question she is saying that “no” is the
correct answer thus making “yes” necessarily the wrong answer.
Thus both [yes, no] are the wrong answer from Carol, thus “no” is the
correct answer from anyone else.
Since the question posed to Carol has no correct answer from Carol and
the same word-for-word question does have a correct answer from anyone
else linguistics understands that these are two different questions
because they have different meanings depending on the linguistic context
of who is asked.
A concrete example of how the meaning of the same word-for-word question
has an entirely different answer depending on who is asked: Are you a
little girl?
We can see that Carol's question posed to Carol is self-contradictory
for Carol because the question contradicts both yes/no answers from
Carol.
Upon careful examination we can see that Carol's question posed to Carol
is isomorphic to input D to decider H where D has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer