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

On 3/13/2024 4:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2024 1:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2024 11:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
Then you aren't taking about Computation Theory!
>

I am currently not talking about computation theory that is limited
to Turing machines. I have broadened the subject to include computable
functions of other models of computation.

>
Which Computation Talks about, and ANY other Model of Computation, that actually does "Computations" as defined, can be converted into a Turing Machine.
>

Within the possibly false assumption that Church-Turing is true.

 It has been generally accepted as True.
 

That would be an error. The actual truth is that no
one is currently aware of any counter-example.

If you think you are smarter then the rest of the world of computation experts, when you don't even seem to know the DEFINITION of a computation.
 Go ahead and try to disprove it.
 

<snip>

That it is not within the bounds of Turing computation never
did prove that it was not in the bounds of computation.

 Unless you can show something that matches the definition of a Compuation (that you don't seem to understand what it is) that can show something able to actually compute a computation that a Turing Machine can't, you are just blowing smoke.
 

There is a mapping from H(D,D) to 0 and a mapping from H1(D,D) to 1
that is fully explained by the ability of C functions to know their
own address. This the implicit (not hidden) extra parameter is an
element of the input of this mapping.

>

>

Like D being in the same "program" as H, instead of a totally independent program.
>

We can analytically determine whether this makes a difference
and what this difference means. H(D,D) cannot currently process
any conditional branch instructions, the x86 emulator cannot
correctly emulate copies of emulated functions unless these
copies are very small.

>
So, you are just admitting you design is limited.
>

The design is not limited the implementation is limited.

 So fix it.
 

Not enough time in my life left to do that. The next best thing
is simply hypothesizing that machines can derive the same analysis
that humans can.
<snip>

Then I hypothesize that
D(D) simply halts when D.H(D,D) transitions to D.Hqe for error.

>
But HOW? You need to say HOW that works.
>

No one has said how it could be defeated.
I cut-off considering making incorrect copies as out-of-scope.

 Not "Incorrect", but functional equivalents, as allowed.
 H^ only needs a copy good enough to get the same answer as the original. If it makes some syntactic changes that do not chance the semantics of the program, that can still achieve that goal.
 

Not in scope.
<snip>

Except that their errors have been pointed out.
>

Not at all. Opinions that they are incorrect or even proofs
that they are incorrect that are based on possibly false
assumptions do not show that they are incorrect.

 Nope. They make FACTUAL INCORRECT STATEMENTS.
 

The wording of some of the statements are not precisely correct
yet the gist of what they say is correct.
We cannot correctly say that your cure for cancer is no good
because you got a comma out-of-place.

(a) Hired climate change deniers are causing the death of the planet.
>
(b) When True(L,x) is computable then they could be objectively proved
to be liars.

 You don't need True(L,x), if you think we really do, then we ARE Doomed.
 

Without a provably correct and objective measure of truth
that consistently divides lies from truth we are doomed.
It does look like we are probably doomed. I continue to
do my best to prevent this.

>
(c) True(L,x) is construed as uncomputable because Tarski did not
understand how it could correctly handle the Liar Paradox.

 Nope, it s construed as uncomputable, because it IS.
 

That is not an actual reason. If you understood the actual
proof you would understand that I am correct.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
Tarski's encoding of the actual Liar Paradox
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x

What answer SHOULD True(L, S) give for the S that is "Not True(L,S)"
 If you can't answer that, you need to admit it can't be defined.
 

*True(L,x) returns TRUE when x is True otherwise returns FALSE*
LP = "This sentence is not true."
Boolean True(English, LP)   returns FALSE
Boolean True(English, ~LP) returns FALSE
<snip>

If undecidability deciders can be made this by itself is progress.
>

>
But Undecidability is a property of the Mapping, not the input.
>

Halts(D,D) is an abstraction that indicates the actual behavior of D(D).
H(D,D) correctly detects that it has no mapping to Halts(D,D).

 Nope.
 

There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Likewise when you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
That there are some men that have stopped beating their
wife does not show that it is not an incorrect question.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

Just Puff and Bluster.
 Halts(D,D) give the ACTUAL ANSWER for the SPECIFIC D built with a SPECIFIC H that wlll have SPECIFIC behavior,
 That H just gives the wrong answer just means it is wrong.
 What exactly do you MEAN by
H(D,D) correctly detects that it has no mapping to Halts(D,D).
 H is a FIXED machine, as is D at the point of asking.
If you mean that there is no possible H that can answer for the D made from it, that is an infinte set of questions, each with a correct answer (so valid question) and the fact that you can show that every machine has an input it get wrong just proves non-computability, not an invalid question.
 So, you are just showing that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological liar, since you have been TOLD what is right, but you ignore it.
 

*You know that I am not saying anything that I do not believe*
Revelations 21:8 NRSV
...all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns
with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’

>

And Mappings are infinites, so can't be given to a Machine to decide on.
>
So an Undecidabiiry Decider is a category error.

>

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer