Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them --Gödel--

On 3/12/2024 1:31 PM, immibis wrote:

On 12/03/24 19:12, olcott wrote:

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>
There is some input TMD to every H such that
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

 And it can be a different TMD to each H.
 

When we disallow decider/input pairs that are incorrect
questions where both YES and NO are the wrong answer

 Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
 

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
BOTH YES AND NO ARE THE WRONG ANSWER FOR EVERY Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

Does the barber that shaves everyone that does not shave
themselves shave himself? is rejected as an incorrect question.

 The barber does not exist.

Russell's paradox did not allow this answer within Naive set theory.

The following is true statement:
 ∀ Barber ∈ People. ¬(∀ Person ∈ People. Shaves(Barber, Person) ⇔ ¬Shaves(Person, Person))
 The following is a true statement:
 ¬∃ Barber ∈ People. (∀ Person ∈ People. Shaves(Barber, Person) ⇔ ¬Shaves(Person, Person))
 

That might be correct I did not check it over and over
again and again to make sure.
The same reasoning seems to rebut Gödel Incompleteness:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 ... (Gödel 1931:43-44)
¬∃G ∈ F | G := ~(F ⊢ G)
Any G in F that asserts its own unprovability in F is
asserting that there is no sequence of inference steps
in F that prove that they themselves do not exist in F.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer