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

On 3/17/2024 10:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-15 14:46:09 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 3/15/2024 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-13 14:19:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/13/2024 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-12 14:45:51 +0000, olcott said:
>

This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.

>
The question "Is the specification of halt decider satisfiable?"
is not ill-formed.
>

>
Whenever undecidability is anchored epistemological antinomy
that means that the decider is trying to determine whether
a self-contradictory expression is true or false. All of these
cases are ill-formed.
>
The self-contradictory nature of the halting problem counter-example
input makes this input ill-formed.
>
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof...
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. 15 ...
(Gödel 1931:43-44)

>
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>

>
I just showed how and why Gödel' comments are incorrect.

 No, you didn't. You just quoted some but said nothing obout them.
 

"epistemological antinomy" means self-contradictory expression.
Whenever undecidability is anchored epistemological antinomy
that means that the decider is trying to determine whether
a self-contradictory expression is true or false. All of these
cases are ill-formed.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer