Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them --discourse context --

On 3/17/2024 12:21 PM, immibis wrote:

On 17/03/24 18:13, olcott wrote:

On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:

On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:

On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:

On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:

On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
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

>
Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the right answer for D.
>

>
Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
for H to do this is bogus.

>
Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth value to the expression that is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.
>

>
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
*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.
>

>
Why, because it is NOT a LIE.
>
You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question.
>

I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

>
Nope, common technical term.
>

>
Cite a source.
>

>

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.

>
Right, because that question include a presumption of something not actually present.
>

>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
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
>
>

>
Except that the mapping requested is about the INPUTS to H, not H itsef.
>

>
In order to see that it is an incorrect question we must examine
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⟩))

>
Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just shown to be a stupid liar.
>
The QUESTION is:
>
Does the machine and input described by this input, Halt when run?

>
The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer, thus not the
same question at all.

>
But it DOES.

>
Then tell me which element of:
∀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.
>

>
I didn't say there was.
>

>
Then you understand that each question posed to each Ĥ.H in the
above set has no correct answer only because each of these answers
are contradicted by the machine that H is contained within.
>

>
No, YOU don't understand that the IS a correct answer, just not the one that H (or H^.H ) happens to give.
>

>
Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.
>

>
>
If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and loops so qn was the right answer.

*The strawman deception is all that you have*
>
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*

>
Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the best you can say?
>

>
The above are the program/input pairs such that every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
gets the wrong answer only because whatever answer that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
gets is contradicted.
>
>

>
So?
>
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.

>
Objective and Subjective Specifications
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.

>
Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely objective question.
>
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⟩ halts
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
>

Nope.
>
The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
>

>
The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?

>
Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS.
>
Carol is a volitional being.

>
When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
everything remains the same.

>
Nope.
>
Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
>

>
The only reason that:
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.
>

>
Nope.
>
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.
>

>
*You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
*Carol's question posed to Carol*
*is not contradicted just like*
*Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
>

>
Yes, I have.
>
YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
>
Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
>

>
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
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.

>
(b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
>

>
When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
thus it is the wrong answer.

>
What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?

The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
(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".
>

>

>
Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine that uses it.
>
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.

>
*Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*

>
So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can give it.
>

>
That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
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.
>

>
Carol's Question posed to Carol:
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*
>
>

>
So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a correct answer.
>

>
You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.

>
If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
someone may answer "no".
>

That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
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.

>
A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked.
If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong interpretation.
>

>
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
>
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
(b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*

 The same question has the same correct answer no matter which halting decider is asked. That you refuse to understand this reveals your dishonesty.
 

That what you just said is counter-factual may be too difficult you
too understand. Try to explain how when Carol answers "no" this is
incorrect whereas when anyone else answers "no" this is correct.

>
*THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
*The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
*of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word question*
*is correct or incorrect*
>

 

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