Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even ifOn 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can give it.On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:*Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine that uses it.On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:(b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes, I have.On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:*You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope.On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:The only reason that:On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope.On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machineOn 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.HOn 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely objective question.On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:Objective and Subjective SpecificationsOn 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:So?On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the best you can say?On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:*The strawman deception is all that you have*On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and loops so qn was the right answer.On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct answer, just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:Then you understand that each question posed to each Ĥ.H in theOn 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I didn't say there was.On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:Then tell me which element of:On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But it DOES.On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer, thus not theOn 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just shown to be a stupid liar.On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:In order to see that it is an incorrect question we must examineOn 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Except that the mapping requested is about the INPUTS to H, not H itsef.On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:Cite a source.On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope, common technical term.On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why, because it is NOT a LIE.On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth value to the expression that is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truthOn 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the right answer for D.Not quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for each quesiton.They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questions
value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
for H to do this is bogus.
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that exists.
This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect question.
You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NORight, because that question include a presumption of something not actually present.The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing Machines and there input to a result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERY member of that input set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping to ask a decider to try to decider.That part is true.
Likewise when you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating tour wife?
There are some men that have stopped beating their wife.
there is no mapping from never unmarried men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
the question in detail. Making sure to always ignore this key detail
<is> cheating.
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
∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
The QUESTION is:
Does the machine and input described by this input, Halt when run?
same question at all.
∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure that
you explain why this element is correct and don't try to switch
to any other element outside of the above specified set.
above set has no correct answer only because each of these answers
are contradicted by the machine that H is contained within.
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
∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
*The answer must come from elements of the above set*
gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
gets is contradicted.
That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the ACTUAL QUESTION needs to come from.
You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
synonymous with "no".
Here is the one where the loophole is closed:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
that question proves that it is a different question when posed
to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking at it.
Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can be given to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will be the same irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right answer, and some will give the wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't make the question subjective.
The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try to redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where we prove that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of those are SEPERATE Halting question (not all one question) and each of those seperate questions have a correct answer.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ haltsNope.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
(that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question
The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Carol is a volitional being.
everything remains the same.
Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
The only reason that:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to Carol
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is contradicted.
You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE claims again.
Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have no basis.
You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where anything goes and rhetoric rules.
*Carol's question posed to Carol*
*is not contradicted just like*
*Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
(b) Does Ĥ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
thus it is the wrong answer.
(a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop (always does the opposite of what it says).
(b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt (always does the opposite of what it says).
Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and it is programmed to answer "no" even though the correct answer is "yes".
You don't seem to understand what answer is.
And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return, so you can't assume any.
H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the wrong answer for the H^ built from it.
author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
answering by being gagged as you suggest.
It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
"logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
professor Hehner.
These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
You continue to fail to take into account that the discourseCarol's Question posed to Carol:So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a correct answer.
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
That who is asked changes the meaning of the questionA halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked.
is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
wording of this question is not changed.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.