Re: Proving my 2004 claim that some decider/input pairs are incorrect questions

On 3/12/2024 10:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/24 7:45 AM, olcott wrote:

This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
Two PhD computer science professors agree with this analysis.
>
E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
 > PREMISES:
 > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
 > was defined to be impossible.
 >
 > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
 > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
 > …
 > CONCLUSION:
 > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
 >
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
*Direct Link to original message*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>
An incorrect YES/NO (thus polar) question is defined as any
YES/NO question where both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
Correctly answering incorrect questions is logically impossible.
>
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
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>
Because for every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can
possibly exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to
this question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts on its input?
>
This exactly meets the definition of an incorrect YES/NO
question for this decider/input pair: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
It is generally the case that the inability to do the
logically impossible places no actual limit on anything
or anyone otherwise CAD systems that cannot correctly
draw square circles would be another limit to computation.
>
The common fake rebuttal to this claim is to use the
strawman deception to switch to some other decider/input
pair besides Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to deceptively try to show that
the question is not incorrect on the basis of some other
different question.
>
>
>

 Intentional LIE and fabrication.
 It has been explained why this is wrong, and your ignoring that says you KNOW you are lying.
 

*I am telling the truth*
*I am telling the truth*
*I am telling the truth*
∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders
∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
In all of the H/TMD cases above where
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
H is being asked a question where both YES and NO
are the wrong answer.
It is not that H is gagged and cannot answer, it is
that both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer