On 1/16/2024 4:23 AM, immibis wrote:
On 1/16/24 00:59, olcott wrote:
On 1/14/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/14/24 19:48, olcott wrote:
Mike Terry recently posted that D is correctly simulated
by H even when the earlier version of H (now named HH)
simulates itself simulating D. He said that this simulation
is correct for all of the steps that H simulates.
The simulation is correct for all of the steps that H simulates. The
problem is that H stops simulating too soon.
I challenged Mike to provide what the detailed
line-by-line steps of the execution trace should
be and he failed to meet this challenge.
I challenge you to show the line-by-line list of names of people who
the barber shaves.
ZFC proves there is no such barber.
ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave himself?"
*Cannot even be expressed*
I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
On 1/17/2024 11:59 AM, immibis wrote:
On 1/17/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
On 1/17/2024 10:17 AM, immibis wrote:
On 1/17/24 15:51, olcott wrote:
*Self-contradiction causes Undecidability*
ZFC established the precedent that redefining faulty definitions
fixes this problem, thus eliminating Undecidability.
Self-contradiction of a decider proves undecidability.
By redefining the faulty definition of {set} ZFC eliminated
Russell's paradox from even being expressed.
*By redefining the halting problem*
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, whether an input finite string pair of program/input
specifies a computation that would reach a final state and terminate
normally.
"It is not longer allowed to contradict the definition of a decider*
Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic >>> property of this finite string.
Does the barber shave every person who doesn't shave themself? Yes or no. >>>In ZFC that question cannot even be expressed.
True or false: ∀x. Shaves(x,x) ⇔ ~Shaves(Barber,x)
I expressed it.
A set that contains itself cannot be expressed in ZFC.
On 1/18/2024 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-17 18:14:05 +0000, olcott said:Incorrect syntax.
On 1/17/2024 11:59 AM, immibis wrote:
On 1/17/24 17:29, olcott wrote:
On 1/17/2024 10:17 AM, immibis wrote:
On 1/17/24 15:51, olcott wrote:
*Self-contradiction causes Undecidability*
ZFC established the precedent that redefining faulty definitions >>>>>>> fixes this problem, thus eliminating Undecidability.
Self-contradiction of a decider proves undecidability.
By redefining the faulty definition of {set} ZFC eliminated
Russell's paradox from even being expressed.
*By redefining the halting problem*
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, whether an input finite string pair of program/input
specifies a computation that would reach a final state and terminate >>>>> normally.
"It is not longer allowed to contradict the definition of a decider* >>>>> Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to >>>>> their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic >>>>> property of this finite string.
Does the barber shave every person who doesn't shave themself? Yes or no.
In ZFC that question cannot even be expressed.
True or false: ∀x. Shaves(x,x) ⇔ ~Shaves(Barber,x)
I expressed it.
A set that contains itself cannot be expressed in ZFC.
True or false: ∀r. (∀x. x ∈ r ⇔ x ∉ x) ⇒ (r ∈ r)?
Mikko
On 1/18/2024 1:46 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/18/24 20:25, olcott wrote:
On 1/18/2024 1:18 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/18/24 20:15, olcott wrote:
On 1/18/2024 11:54 AM, immibis wrote:My question is not a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave
On 1/18/24 18:28, olcott wrote:
On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:Nothing in my question states that {a barber that shaves everyone that >>>>>> does not shave themselves} comes into existence. Did you know this >>>>>> about reading comprehension, or are you illiterate?
On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
himself?"
*Cannot even be expressed*
I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to >>>>>>>>>> the barber paradox.
Mikko
USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$[email protected]>
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
himself?"
Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
Mikko
ZFC does not allow the sets representing
{a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
to come into existence.
Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
In other words you just admitted that your own question
does not exist in ZFC.
themselves,
USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$[email protected]>
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave >>> > himself?" has no correct answer.
You had a loophole that I corrected: a female barber gets around
your above question, thus has a correct answer.
nor is it a set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves.
"Does a barber shave every person who does not shave themselves?" is
also not a barber who shaves every person who does not shave
themselves. It is, in fact, a question written in the English language.
The key point that I am making is that ZFC sets the precedent
that undecidability can be abolished by correcting faulty definitions.
*HH is correctly simulating itself simulation DD*
Do you see the repeated state?
Do you know what the term {repeated state} means?
On 1/18/2024 11:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-18 14:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
On 1/18/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-16 19:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
ZFC corrects the definition of set theory so that the question:
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave >>>>> > himself?"
*Cannot even be expressed*
I don't think "Nobody shaves himself" is a valid resolution to
the barber paradox.
Mikko
USENET Message-ID: <uncb5j$npjn$[email protected]>
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
"Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave >>> > himself?"
Cannot be expressed in ZFC, thus eliminating undecidability
by correcting the erroneous definition of a set.
That ZFC says nothing about barbers and shaving is not
a valid resolution of barber's paradox.
Mikko
ZFC does not allow the sets representing
{a barber that shaves everyone that does not shave themselves}
to come into existence.
Did you know this about ZFC, or are you a newbie?
On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
Mikko
*The following is proven completely true entirely*
*on the basis of the meaning of its words*
(a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D
correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state and
terminate normally then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are specified.
The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in some
other order than they are specified.
The following is proven completely true entirely
on the basis of the meaning of its words:
If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
Mikko
If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
On 1/19/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-18 17:33:53 +0000, olcott said:
On 1/18/2024 11:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-18 14:26:52 +0000, olcott said:
On 1/18/2024 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-17 19:13:30 +0000, olcott said:
I am about to give up on you for dishonesty.
You don't need dishonesty in order to give up.
Mikko
*The following is proven completely true entirely*
*on the basis of the meaning of its words*
(a) If simulating termination analyzer H correctly determines that D >>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state and >>>>> terminate normally then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
The ultimate measure [of a correct simulation] is the correct x86
emulation of the x86 instructions in the order that they are specified. >>>>> The alternative is incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions in some >>>>> other order than they are specified.
The following is proven completely true entirely
on the basis of the meaning of its words:
If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
Mikko
If H(D,D) returns false because D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly halt then the entirely different execution
trace of the directly executed D(D) is the strawman deception.
The following is proven completely true entirely
on the basis of the meaning of its words:
If H(D,D) returns false and D(D) halts then H is not a halt decider.
*That definition violates the correct definition of a decider*
Deciders always must compute the mapping from an input finite string to
their own accept or reject state on the basis of a syntactic or semantic property of this finite string.
On 1/19/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-01-18 19:17:55 +0000, olcott said:
*HH is correctly simulating itself simulation DD*
Do you see the repeated state?
Do you know what the term {repeated state} means?
Some systems are required to have a reapeated state that is
reachable from every other state of the system.
Some systems are required to have no repeated states.
A Turing machine that has a repeated state with the same
tape content and the same head position is permitted but
it is not a decider.
Mikko
DOES NOT HALT
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 27:47:30 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,220 |