Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them --undecidability decider--

On 3/13/2024 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 8:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-13 03:41:18 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/12/2024 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/24 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 6:38 PM, immibis wrote:

On 13/03/24 00:24, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 6:05 PM, immibis wrote:

On 12/03/24 23:53, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 4:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:

Not exactly. A pair of otherwise identical machines that
(that are contained within the above specified set)
only differ by return value will both be wrong on the
same pathological input.

>
You mean a pair of DIFFERENT machines. Any difference is different.

>
Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a
corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return
value of its decider.

>
Nope.
>

∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)
>
Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
value of its Boolean_TM.
>
That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that
their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
same question is also proven to be incorrect.
>

>
Nobody knows what the fuck you are talking about. You have to actually explain it. The same machine always gives the same return value on the same input.
>

>
It has taken me twenty years to translate my intuitions into
words that can possibly understood.

>
You failed.
>

A pair of Turing Machines that return Boolean that are identical
besides their return value that cannot decide some property of
the same input are being asked the same YES/NO question having
no correct YES/NO answer.

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Formal_definition
A Turing machine is ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩
Show me two ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ that are identical besides their return value.
You can't because you are talking nonsense. they don't exist.

>
Turing machine descriptions that are identical finite strings
except for the the 1/0 that they write the their exact same
tape relative location.
>

>
So they aren't identical.
>
"Identical except ..." means DIFFERENT.
>
So you LIE

>
Not at all. I did not know these details until

  ...
>
To claim something as truth without knowing it is to lie.
>

That I have acknowledged my mistakes is sufficient reason
to conclude that these mistakes were never known falsehoods
with the intent to deceive.

 But you still continue to say those statements.
 

I have acknowledged several mistakes.
I no longer assert any of those things.
In the future I will assert things as hypotheses.

>
The current focus is this can H(D,D) always detect when its
input is calling itself with its same parameters such that
the correctly simulated D(D) would never stop running unless
aborted.
>
*Hypothesis*
I say that if it is detectable then a machine can detect it
and it cannot be undetectable.

 Then show how it can be done as a Turing Machine.
 

That is not in the hypothesis.

Note, the basis isn't "I Say", the basis is "It can be shown".
 

I make a tentative assertion that I call a hypothesis
and it remains possibly true until refuted.

Remember, the input is antagonistic to you, and knows what you are doing or planning on doing, and will do everything allowed to thwart your attempts.
 

Yes and it seems to me that thwarting this particular
scenario is categorically impossible. A counter-example
would prove me wrong.

This includes, programatticly editing the description to make an equivalent machine with nodes rearranges or "no-ops" added to the code, to make the description harder to compare.
 

That does not work on H(D,D).
I am focusing on H(D,D).
If H(D,D) cannot be thwarted as a computable function
then my hypothesis would seem to be validated.

>
If the above is true then this gives us two things:
(a) An alternative decidable criteria for the halting problem
(b) A way for every machine to correctly decide its own
undecidability on the original halting problem criteria.
>

 No, it does not get you an "Alternative Decidable Criteria" for the Halting Problem, as it isn't actually EQUIVALENT to the Halting Criteria.
 

If the original criteria are proved to be incorrect then
the new criteria could replace them the same way that ZFC
replaced Naive set theory.

It calls some machines DIFFERENTLY, so it is a DIFFERENT mapping.
 You might be able to claim an alternate Halting Problem based on your alternate criteria, and then you need to show it is useful.
 

If the original criteria are proved to be incorrect the same sort
of way that ZFC replace Naive set theory, then the original halting
problem proofs are nullified.

After all, there are still other mappings that turn out to be non-computable not based on that pathological pattern, that you still won't handle.

One thing at a time.
I cannot afford to tolerate the [change the subject] form of
rebuttal that wasted 15 years with Ben Bacarisse.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer