Re: The key undecidable instance that I know about

On 3/9/2025 1:26 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/9/2025 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:

Is the Liar Paradox True or False?
>
LP := ~True(LP)
>
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
>
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
>
Its infinitely recursive structure makes it neither true nor false.
>

 Nice try making a new post to dishonestly dodge your false claim:
 On 3/9/2025 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
 > It turns out that all of the undecidable cases
 > that I know about have no correct yes/no answer.
 When you know of this one:
 Does algorithm X with input Y halt when run directly for all X and Y?
 But no algorithm exists to compute it.
 Your above claim is also a category error, as an undecidable problem has a valid yes or no answer in all cases as a prerequisite.

I see you've made no attempt to refute what I've stated above.  Others reading this will take note of that and conclude that you can't, and therefore agree that the following problem statement, i.e. the halting problem, is undecidable:
Does algorithm X with input Y halt when run directly for all X and Y?
And therefore agree that all proofs of it, including the Linz proof are CORRECT.