On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified it for >>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this self- >>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked]
changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem instance* >>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct Boolean >>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not mean that >>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists for >>>>>> this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from the
decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an incorrect >>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} are
the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer program
D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory questions* >>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a mandatory >>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that
Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified it for >>>>>> people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not
true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this self- >>>>>> contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked]
changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem instance* >>>>>> When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct Boolean >>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever
decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not mean that >>>>>> an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists for >>>>>> this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from the
decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an incorrect >>>> question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} are
the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer program
D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory questions* >>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a mandatory >>>> aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified it >>>>>>> for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this >>>>>>> self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] >>>>>>> changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct Boolean >>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not mean >>>>>>> that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists for >>>>>>> this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from the >>>>>>> decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory questions* >>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input D
where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
Neither return value of true/false is correct for each decider/input
pair because each element <is> a self-contradictory question.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
where gullible fools can honestly believe that there are HP
instances that have not been accounted for.
People stuck in rebuttal mode may try to claim that an infinite set
of program/input pairs have zero elements that are programs, yet this
is very obviously quite foolish.
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified it >>>>>>> for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this >>>>>>> self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] >>>>>>> changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly
ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct Boolean >>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not mean >>>>>>> that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a
correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists for >>>>>>> this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original
meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from the >>>>>>> decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory questions* >>>>> when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input D
where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified >>>>>>>> it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this >>>>>>>> self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] >>>>>>>> changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly >>>>>>>> ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct Boolean >>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not mean >>>>>>>> that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a >>>>>>>> correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original >>>>>>>> meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from the >>>>>>>> decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input D
where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified >>>>>>>> it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-
contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this >>>>>>>> self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] >>>>>>>> changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly >>>>>>>> ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem
instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct Boolean >>>>>>>> value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not mean >>>>>>>> that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a >>>>>>>> correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original >>>>>>>> meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a
decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from the >>>>>>>> decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no}
are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input D
where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified >>>>>>>>> it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self- >>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this >>>>>>>>> self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] >>>>>>>>> changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly >>>>>>>>> ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>> program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem >>>>>>>>> instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct >>>>>>>>> Boolean
value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not >>>>>>>>> mean that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a >>>>>>>>> correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original >>>>>>>>> meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a >>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from >>>>>>>>> the decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.
On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified >>>>>>>>> it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self- >>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to this >>>>>>>>> self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is asked] >>>>>>>>> changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly >>>>>>>>> ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>> program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem >>>>>>>>> instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct >>>>>>>>> Boolean
value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to be an >>>>>>>>> incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not >>>>>>>>> mean that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a >>>>>>>>> correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original >>>>>>>>> meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a >>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from >>>>>>>>> the decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an
incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a
mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.
On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified >>>>>>>>>> it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self- >>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to >>>>>>>>>> this self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
asked] changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly >>>>>>>>>> ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>>> program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem >>>>>>>>>> instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct >>>>>>>>>> Boolean
value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to >>>>>>>>>> be an
incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not >>>>>>>>>> mean that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a >>>>>>>>>> correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original >>>>>>>>>> meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a >>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from >>>>>>>>>> the decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says. >>>>>>>>
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a >>>>>>>> mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns >>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.
That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
self-contradictory for this decider.
When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
<is> self-contradictory in the same way that
"This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
self-contradictory for this decider.
When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
<is> self-contradictory in the same way that
"This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have simplified >>>>>>>>>> it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self- >>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to >>>>>>>>>> this self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is
asked] changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be correctly >>>>>>>>>> ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>>> program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem >>>>>>>>>> instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct >>>>>>>>>> Boolean
value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to >>>>>>>>>> be an
incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>> decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not >>>>>>>>>> mean that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach a >>>>>>>>>> correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the original >>>>>>>>>> meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a >>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from >>>>>>>>>> the decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} >>>>>>>> are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer
program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says. >>>>>>>>
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory
questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a >>>>>>>> mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and input
D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that H returns >>>> <is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.
That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
self-contradictory for this decider.
When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
<is> self-contradictory in the same way that
"This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
simplified it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self- >>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to >>>>>>>>>>> this self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is >>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
correctly ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>>>> program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem >>>>>>>>>>> instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct >>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to >>>>>>>>>>> be an
incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>> whatever
decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not >>>>>>>>>>> mean that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach >>>>>>>>>>> a correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
original meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a >>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from >>>>>>>>>>> the decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says. >>>>>>>>>
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory >>>>>>>>> questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a >>>>>>>>> mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that >>>>> H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.
That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
self-contradictory for this decider.
When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
<is> self-contradictory in the same way that
"This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
I told the computer science professor about
the loophole you found in his work.
On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show that >>>>>>>>>>> Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
simplified it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self- >>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is not >>>>>>>>>>> true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to >>>>>>>>>>> this self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is >>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
correctly ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>>>> program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem >>>>>>>>>>> instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct >>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to >>>>>>>>>>> be an
incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>> whatever
decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not >>>>>>>>>>> mean that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach >>>>>>>>>>> a correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value exists >>>>>>>>>>> for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the
original meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a >>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from >>>>>>>>>>> the decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair
is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says. >>>>>>>>>
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory >>>>>>>>> questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a >>>>>>>>> mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H
is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value that >>>>> H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair.
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.
That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
self-contradictory for this decider.
When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
<is> self-contradictory in the same way that
"This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
I told the computer science professor about
the loophole you found in his work.
On 10/17/2023 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2023 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2023 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
A PhD computer science professor came up with a way to show >>>>>>>>>>>> that
Turing's halting problem proof is erroneous. I have
simplified it for
people that know nothing about computer programming.
One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self- >>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory expressions are not true. “This sentence is >>>>>>>>>>>> not true.” is
not true and that does not make it true. As a corollary to >>>>>>>>>>>> this self-
contradictory questions are incorrect.
Linguistics understands that when the context of [who is >>>>>>>>>>>> asked] changes
the meaning of this question, this context cannot be
correctly ignored.
When Jack's question is posed to Jack it has no correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
*Simplified Halting Problem Proof*
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>>>>> program D
will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says.
This meets the definition of an *incorrect decision problem >>>>>>>>>>>> instance*
When decision problem instance decider/input has no correct >>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
value that the decider can return then this is stipulated to >>>>>>>>>>>> be an
incorrect problem instance.
We could also say that input D that does the opposite of >>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
decider H returns is an invalid input for H.
As everyone knows the technical term *undecidable* does not >>>>>>>>>>>> mean that
an algorithm is too weak to find the steps required to reach >>>>>>>>>>>> a correct
Boolean return value.
It actually means that no correct Boolean return value >>>>>>>>>>>> exists for this
decision problem instance.
Because people subconsciously implicitly refer to the >>>>>>>>>>>> original meaning
of undecidable [can't make up one's mind] they misconstrue a >>>>>>>>>>>> decider/input pair with no correct Boolean return value from >>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
as the fault of the decider and thus not the fault of the >>>>>>>>>>>> input.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>> and that this is isomorphic to the HP decider/input pair >>>>>>>>>>> is the 100% complete essence of the whole proof.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>
Jack's question when posed to Jack meets the definition of an >>>>>>>>>> incorrect
question in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, >>>>>>>>>> no} are the
wrong answer.
Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer >>>>>>>>>> program D will do when D does the opposite of whatever H says. >>>>>>>>>>
Both of the above two *are* essentially *self-contradictory >>>>>>>>>> questions*
when the full context of *who is asked* is understood to be a >>>>>>>>>> mandatory
aspect of the meaning of these questions.
There is a very simple principle here:
Self-contradictory questions have no correct answer only
because there is something wrong with the question.
Both Jack's question posed to Jack and input D
to program H that does the opposite of whatever
H says are SELF-CONTRADICTORY QUESTIONS.
This eliminates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
Of the infinite set of definitions for H where some D does
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this H returns
none of them provides a Boolean value corresponding to the
behavior of any D.
Because I have stipulated infinite sets there cannot possibly
be some other H or D that has not already been addressed.
Each element of the infinite set of every possible encoding of H >>>>>>> is a program. I am sure that you already knew this.
Each element of the set of every possible combination of H and
input D where D does the opposite of of whatever Boolean value
that H returns
<is> the infinite set of every halting problem decider/input pair. >>>>>>
"Wrong, for EVERY input, there is a correct answer"
For every halting problem decider/input pair there
is no correct Boolean value that can be returned
by this decider because this input to this pair
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
for this decider.
The some other decider can answer some other question
is no rebuttal at all.
An input D to a decider H1 having no pathological relationship
to this decider is an entirely different question than this
same input input to decider H that has been defined to do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
Does machine D halt on input D?
Is a self-contradictory question for H when D is defined
to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns
and not a self-contradictory question for H1.
That D contradicts H and does not contradict H1
proves that these are two different questions.
That H(D,D) cannot possibly return either Boolean
value that corresponds to the direct execution of any
D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever value
that H returns proves that the decider/input pair is
self-contradictory for this decider.
When D does the opposite of whatever H says this
<is> self-contradictory in the same way that
"This sentence is not true." contradicts itself.
I told the computer science professor about
the loophole you found in his work.
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question when posed
to Jack.
Jack's question <is> precisely isomorphic to this question:
"Does your input halt on its input?" when posed to H on input
D such that D does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that
H returns.
That people have been well indoctrinated into the belief that
the halting problem is correct any anyone saying otherwise is
crazy has them ignore all of the facts and short-circuit to a
counter-factual conclusion.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 917 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 08:21:42 |
| Calls: | 12,176 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 186,522 |
| Messages: | 2,234,994 |