On 12/24/23 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:

On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:

On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:

On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:

*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

Then don't post it to comp.theory.

This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.

For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

Anyone can find three idiots.

The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

So, what is "Self-Contradictory" about the actual problem?

Do you agree that all actual programs, as defined in Computability
Theory, will either halt of not?

(If not, show one example of an actual program that will either
sometimes halt and sometimes not when given the exact say input, or will somehow neither halt or not)

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a different meaning thus is a different question.

How?

Does the input D represent a program that will halt with its specified
input or not?

How can that depend on who you ask to try to predict it actual behavior?

Maybe your problem is that your "Termination analyzer" isn't trying to determine that answer to the wrong question. It isn't being asked if
"Its" simulation will halt, it is being asked if the program when run
will halt, and any "simulation" attempted of that input MUST match that behavior to be a valid substitution.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

And the context is FULLY specified in the question. It is asking about
the behavior of the actual execution of the program described to it.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

And that example needs the pronoun "You", there is no equivalent to a
pronoun in the actual halting question.

"Does the machine and input represented by the input Halt when run"

No pronoun to change the context.

H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

So?

H gives the wrong answer, so isn't correct.

H1 isn't the machine that your particular D was built to refute, so it
giving the right answer is meaningless.

Remember, D includes the copy of the code of the decider that it is to
refute, so, since D doesn't include H1's code, it can't be the needed
input to show H1 wrong.

You are just proving you don't understand any of the basic terms.


Note, your programs also fail to actually meet the requirements as you
have no "seperate" program "H" (or "H1") and input "D" but just one
bundled mess that can not actually be decomposed into the needed
independent machine and input.

This just shows your total lack of understanding of the problem.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Why do you just keep repeating your self, and not answer the arguements
posed to you?

Answer: You know you can't, so you just attempt to do the "Big Lie" by repeating them, showing your idioticy,, and hypo

On 12/24/23 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:

The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

So, what is "Self-Contradictory" about the actual problem?

"Does the Machine and Input described Halt when run?"

Do you agree that all actual programs, as defined in Computability
Theory, will either halt of not?

Thus the program D given its input, the representation of D, WILL either
Halt or not when actually run. (Which is the target of the question
given to H)

(If not, show one example of an actual program that will either
sometimes halt and sometimes not when given the exact say input, or will somehow neither halt or not)

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a different meaning thus is a different question.

How? What changes about the behavior of the input based on which machine
it is given to?

Remember, the question is:

Does the input D represent a program that will halt with its specified
input or not?

How can that depend on who you ask to try to predict it actual behavior?

Maybe your problem is that your "Termination analyzer" isn't trying to determine that answer to the wrong question. It isn't being asked if
"Its" simulation will halt, it is being asked if the program when run
will halt, and any "simulation" attempted of that input MUST match that behavior to be a valid substitution.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

And the context is FULLY specified in the question. It is asking about
the behavior of the actual execution of the program described to it.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

And that example needs the pronoun "You", there is no equivalent to a
pronoun in the actual halting question.

"Does the machine and input represented by the input Halt when run"

No pronoun to change the context.

H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

So?

H gives the wrong answer, so isn't correct.

H1 isn't the machine that your particular D was built to refute, so it
giving the right answer is meaningless.

Remember, D includes the copy of the code of the decider that it is to
refute, so, since D doesn't include H1's code, it can't be the needed
input to show H1 wrong.

You are just proving you don't understand any of the basic terms.


Note, your programs also fail to actually meet the requirements as you
have no "seperate" program "H" (or "H1") and input "D" but just one
bundled mess that can not actually be decomposed into the needed
independent machine and input.

This just shows your total lack of understanding of the problem.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/23 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 10:04 AM, Python wrote:

Le 24/12/2023 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :

On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:

On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:

On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:

On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:

*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

Then don't post it to comp.theory.

This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.

For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

Anyone can find three idiots.

The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
court documents show.

Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
he was God, court documents said.

Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
County, and his bond was set at $200,000.

The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
appearance is scheduled for May 4.

Case dismissed November 17, 2016
Ad Hominem does not count as a rebuttal.

So, do you deny that you WERE found with those materials?
or that you made the claim indicated?

Note, "Case Dismissed" doesn't mean found innocent, or charges found to
be incorrect.

It means that for some reason they decided not to proceed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/23 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:

The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

According to the conventional understanding of the halting problem
when the above H is asked:
Does the direct execution of D(D) halt on its input?
both Yes and No are the wrong answer because D was
intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever H says.

Nope, only the answer that this H gives is wrong, and this H can only
give one answer, the one its programming says it will give.

You don't seem to understand deterministic entities.

Maybe because you logic isn't deterministic, but can give answers at random.

Note, D is ALLOWED to do the opposite of what H says, that shows the
power of Turing Complete computations.

That the halting problem is defined to allow self-contradictory
inputs does not actually place any limit on computation.

Nope

The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory (thus
incorrect) questions does not place any actual limit on anyone
of anything.

Nope

If I ask you: What time it is (yes or no)?
We cannot correctly conclude that you are stupid or ignorant on
the basis that you cannot correctly answer this incorrect question.

Nope. The actual question had a correct ansswer, it just that the H
being asked gave the wrong one.

You just don't understand what a program is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/23 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:

On 12/24/23 17:04, Python wrote:

https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
court documents show.

Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
he was God, court documents said.

Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
County, and his bond was set at $200,000.

The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
appearance is scheduled for May 4.

Geo-blocked. This can't be the same Peter Olcott... can it? This one
doesn't call himself God.

He has effectively admitted that this case refers to him. He seems to
think that just because the courts seemed to have dropped the case
(haven't heard the basis of that) that this means what happened didn't
happen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/23 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:

The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

According to the conventional understanding of the halting problem
when the above H is asked:
Does the direct execution of D(D) halt on its input?
both Yes and No are the wrong answer because D was
intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever H says.

That the halting problem is defined to allow self-contradictory
inputs does not actually place any limit on computation.

The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory (thus
incorrect) questions does not place any actual limit on anyone
of anything.

If I ask you: What time it is (yes or no)?
We cannot correctly conclude that you are stupid or ignorant on
the basis that you cannot correctly answer this incorrect question.

For the infinite set of every H having a corresponding D
that has been defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
value that H returns: Does the direct execution of D(D) halt?
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for each H.

The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory questions
places no actual limit on anyone or anything.

So, is your "D" the same input for every H, in which case the claim is
false, as there are multiple H in the set that give the right answer for
this input.

If D changes per H in the set, then you are not talking about a specific question, so you are not saying that any one of them has no correct
answer. Every D in that set has a correct answer, and there exist some
H's in that set that might give it.

If you are talking that for every H there is a D that it can not answer correctly, you are right, that there is no combiniation that gives the
correct answer, but, since EVERY INDIVIDUAL question had a correct
answer, and thus is a valid question, all you have done is PROVE the
statement you are trying to refute, that for every H there exist an
valid input that it doesn't answer correctly.

You are also just showing that you don't understand how logic actually
works.

You are just proving your ignorance of what you are doing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/23 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:

The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

According to the conventional understanding of the halting problem
when the above H is asked:
Does the direct execution of D(D) halt on its input?
both Yes and No are the wrong answer because D was
intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever H says.

That the halting problem is defined to allow self-contradictory
inputs does not actually place any limit on computation.

The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory (thus
incorrect) questions does not place any actual limit on anyone
of anything.

If I ask you: What time it is (yes or no)?
We cannot correctly conclude that you are stupid or ignorant on
the basis that you cannot correctly answer this incorrect question.

For the infinite set of every H having a corresponding D
that has been defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
value that H returns: Does the direct execution of D(D) halt?
is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for each H.

The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory questions
places no actual limit on anyone or anything.

So, is your "D" the same input for every H, in which case the claim is
false, as there are multiple H in the set that give the right answer for
this input.

If D changes per H in the set, then you are not talking about a specific question, so you are not saying that any one of them has no correct
answer. Every D in that set has a correct answer, and there exist some
H's in that set that might give it.

If you are talking that for every H there is a D that it can not answer correctly, you are right, that there is no combiniation that gives the
correct answer, but, since EVERY INDIVIDUAL question had a correct
answer, and thus is a valid question, all you have done is PROVE the
statement you are trying to refute, that for every H there exist an
valid input that it doesn't answer correctly.

You are also just showing that you don't understand how logic actually
works.

You are just proving your ignorance of what you are doing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)