Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--

On 4/29/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/29/2024 10:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 14:28:55 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/29/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 13:10:29 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/28/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-27 13:39:50 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/27/2024 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-26 13:54:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/25/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-25 00:17:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

>
Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means that
some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and
you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is complete
in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>

>
I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
is basically invalid input.

>
You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. Therefore you
don't need any teaching device.
>

>
That is too close to ad homimen.
If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.

>
No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of discussion so
you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>
I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or otherwise.
>

>
If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is wrong with
the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is essentially
an as hominem attack.

>
You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you don't.
>

>
You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
of the link between proof theory and computability.

>
Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But that
link is not needed for understanding and solving problems separately
in the two areas.
>

When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to construe
this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally understand.

>
People working on computability theory do not understand "invalid input"
as "impossible input".

>
The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this
case, thus showing undecidability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>
So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.

>
That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>

>
Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
the halting problem proof is wrong.
>
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).

>
Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>

>
Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
required to determine the halt status of the program that
invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>
All these same people also know the computable functions only
operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
else.
>
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
When the definition of a halt decider contradicts the definition of
a computable function they can't both be right.

>
When the definitions of a term contradicts the definition of another term
then both of them are wrong. A correct definition does not contradict
anything other than a different definition of the same term.
>

>
*Wrong*

>
That "Wrong" is wrong as it refers to a true statement.
>

>
 >>> then both of them are wrong.
No it only proves that at least one of them are wrong.

>
A correct definition cannot contradict any other sentence, including
other defintions as well as any true and false claims. If a "defintion"
contradicts something then it is not really a definition.
>

>
*That is not the way that it works*

>
Yes, it is. A correct definition does not claim anything, so it cannot
contradict anything.
>

If a pair of existing definitions
contradict each other then at least one of them is incorrect.

>
If a definition contradicts anything then it is incorrect.
If both of them contradict something then both are incorrect.
>

>
Are you actually paying attention or just glancing at a few
words and then spouting off something?

>
No reason to actually pay attention as long as observed errors remain
uncorrected.
>

>
All of the prior objections have been fully addressed yet cannot be
understood until all of the preceding steps of the proof are understood.

>
If you want that smoething not yet understood be understood you must
the whole story to a web page and post a pointer to that page.

 That does not work, everyone simply glances at a few words then
leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong.
 

They are just copying your own behavior.
And actually, that is a LIE, many DO read your words and point out the errors, that you just refuse to look at or even try to refute, because it seems, since your statements are just wrong, you can't actually refute the actual errors pointed out in your "proofs".

If someone
still finds an error or problem there, fix the page and post a notice
of imporovement (with the link). Otherwise nobody is ever going to
understand what you want to make understood.
>