• Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Mar 13 11:44:28 2024
    On 2024-03-13 03:41:18 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/12/2024 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 6:38 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 13/03/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 6:05 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/03/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 4:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    Not exactly. A pair of otherwise identical machines that >>>>>>>>>>> (that are contained within the above specified set)
    only differ by return value will both be wrong on the
    same pathological input.

    You mean a pair of DIFFERENT machines. Any difference is different. >>>>>>>>>
    Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a >>>>>>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return >>>>>>>>> value of its decider.

    Nope.

    ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
    ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
    Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

    Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
    corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
    value of its Boolean_TM.

    That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that
    their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the
    same question is also proven to be incorrect.


    Nobody knows what the fuck you are talking about. You have to actually >>>>>> explain it. The same machine always gives the same return value on the >>>>>> same input.


    It has taken me twenty years to translate my intuitions into
    words that can possibly understood.

    You failed.

    A pair of Turing Machines that return Boolean that are identical
    besides their return value that cannot decide some property of
    the same input are being asked the same YES/NO question having
    no correct YES/NO answer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Formal_definition
    A Turing machine is ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩
    Show me two ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ that are identical besides their >>>> return value.
    You can't because you are talking nonsense. they don't exist.

    Turing machine descriptions that are identical finite strings
    except for the the 1/0 that they write the their exact same
    tape relative location.


    So they aren't identical.

    "Identical except ..." means DIFFERENT.

    So you LIE

    Not at all. I did not know these details until
    ...

    To claim something as truth without knowing it is to lie.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Mar 15 12:42:49 2024
    On 2024-03-15 00:56:54 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/14/2024 7:25 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 15/03/24 00:45, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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


    Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.


    D(D) halts so 1 would be the correct answer.

    Strawman deception, that is not a contradicted answer from
    the following set:

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))

    False. That "D(D) halts so 1 would be the correct answer." is true.
    It is contradicted by H(D,D) that says 0. Being in "following set",
    which is not a set, was not asked.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Mar 15 12:44:11 2024
    On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:
    On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for
    each quesiton.


    They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questions

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


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

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

    *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Why, because it is NOT a LIE.

    You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

    Nope, common technical term.


    Cite a source.


    The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing
    Machines and there input to a result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERY
    member of that input set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping to ask a
    decider to try to decider.

    That part is true.
    Likewise when you ask a man that has never been married: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
    There are some men that have stopped beating their wife. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Right, because that question include a presumption of something not
    actually present.


    Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
    there is no mapping from never unmarried men to YES/NO >>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
    thus the question is incorrect for H/D



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


    In order to see that it is an incorrect question we must examine >>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always ignore this key detail
    <is> cheating.

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) >>>>>>>>>>
    Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just shown to be a stupid liar.

    The QUESTION is:

    Does the machine and input described by this input, Halt when run? >>>>>>>>>
    The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer, thus not the >>>>>>>>> same question at all.

    But it DOES.

    Then tell me which element of:
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure that
    you explain why this element is correct and don't try to switch
    to any other element outside of the above specified set.


    I didn't say there was.


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


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


    Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.



    If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and loops so qn was
    the right answer.
    *The strawman deception is all that you have*

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))

    *The answer must come from elements of the above set*

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

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Mar 15 12:56:38 2024
    On 2024-03-13 14:21:18 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/13/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-03-13 03:41:18 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/12/2024 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 6:38 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 13/03/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 6:05 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/03/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 4:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    Not exactly. A pair of otherwise identical machines that >>>>>>>>>>>>> (that are contained within the above specified set)
    only differ by return value will both be wrong on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same pathological input.

    You mean a pair of DIFFERENT machines. Any difference is different.

    Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a >>>>>>>>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return >>>>>>>>>>> value of its decider.

    Nope.

    ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
    ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
    Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

    Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
    corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return
    value of its Boolean_TM.

    That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that >>>>>>>>> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the >>>>>>>>> same question is also proven to be incorrect.


    Nobody knows what the fuck you are talking about. You have to actually >>>>>>>> explain it. The same machine always gives the same return value on the >>>>>>>> same input.


    It has taken me twenty years to translate my intuitions into
    words that can possibly understood.

    You failed.

    A pair of Turing Machines that return Boolean that are identical >>>>>>> besides their return value that cannot decide some property of
    the same input are being asked the same YES/NO question having
    no correct YES/NO answer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Formal_definition
    A Turing machine is ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩
    Show me two ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ that are identical besides their
    return value.
    You can't because you are talking nonsense. they don't exist.

    Turing machine descriptions that are identical finite strings
    except for the the 1/0 that they write the their exact same
    tape relative location.


    So they aren't identical.

    "Identical except ..." means DIFFERENT.

    So you LIE

    Not at all. I did not know these details until
     ...

    To claim something as truth without knowing it is to lie.

    Not it is not, it is being mistaken.
    Lies are telling known falsehoods with the intention to deceive.

    Opinions about that vary. But an unintended sin is still a sin.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Mar 15 11:37:00 2024
    On 3/15/24 7:44 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/15/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-03-15 00:56:54 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/14/2024 7:25 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 15/03/24 00:45, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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


    Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.


    D(D) halts so 1 would be the correct answer.

    Strawman deception, that is not a contradicted answer from
    the following set:

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))

    False. That "D(D) halts so 1 would be the correct answer." is true.
    It is contradicted by H(D,D) that says 0. Being in "following set",
    which is not a set, was not asked.


    Unless some H(D,D) aborts the simulation of its input D(D) never stops running. The outermost H(D,D) sees this abort criteria first. If the outermost H(D,D) does not abort its simulation then none of them do. Therefore the outermost H(D,D) is correct to abort its simulation.

    When the outermost H(D,D) aborts its simulation then the whole chain
    is simulation is completely stopped. Thus proving that this criteria
    has been met:

    The SIMULATION is stopped, but not the behavior of the machine being
    simulated.

    Since the simulated H^.H, when we correctly simulate H^ (H^) will also
    abort its simulation and make H^ halt, it becomes clear that H NEVER
    correctly determined that the correct simulation of its input (which is
    ALWAYS a non-aborted simulation) would never stop running (since it does).

    You can't correctly determine what is wrong, so H couldn't have
    correctly determined what it claims.

    Now, to talk about changing H and thus the input program is just a LIE,
    since H is what it is and nothing else.

    Your continued reposting this argument and not addressing the errors
    pointed out in it, just shows your callous disregard for the truth,
    which makes you a LIAR.


    Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
    *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct*
    (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
    (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
    unless aborted then
    (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Mar 15 11:38:38 2024
    On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only one of them for each quesiton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of questions

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


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

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


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

    There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists.
    This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.


    Why, because it is NOT a LIE.

    You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.

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

    Nope, common technical term.


    Cite a source.


    The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that maps all Turing Machines and there input to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERY member of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that input set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask a decider to try to decider.

    That part is true.
    Likewise when you ask a man that has never been married: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
    There are some men that have stopped beating their wife. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Right, because that question include a presumption of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something not actually present.


    Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men to YES/NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES/NO
    there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
    thus the question is incorrect for H/D



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


    In order to see that it is an incorrect question we must >>>>>>>>>>>>> examine
    the question in detail. Making sure to always ignore this >>>>>>>>>>>>> key detail
    <is> cheating.

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
    does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just shown to be >>>>>>>>>>>> a stupid liar.

    The QUESTION is:

    Does the machine and input described by this input, Halt >>>>>>>>>>>> when run?

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

    But it DOES.

    Then tell me which element of:
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure
    that
    you explain why this element is correct and don't try to switch >>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above specified set.


    I didn't say there was.


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


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


    Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.



    If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and loops so qn
    was the right answer.
    *The strawman deception is all that you have*

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))

    *The answer must come from elements of the above set*

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


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



    So?

    That doesn't mean they are the set that the answer to the ACTUAL
    QUESTION needs to come from.

    You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Mar 15 11:46:36 2024
    On 3/15/24 7:38 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/15/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-03-13 14:21:18 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/13/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-03-13 03:41:18 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/12/2024 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 6:38 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 13/03/24 00:24, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 6:05 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/03/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 4:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/12/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    Not exactly. A pair of otherwise identical machines that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that are contained within the above specified set) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only differ by return value will both be wrong on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same pathological input.

    You mean a pair of DIFFERENT machines. Any difference is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.

    Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a >>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> return
    value of its decider.

    Nope.

    ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean
    ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |
    Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)

    Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a
    corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return >>>>>>>>>>> value of its Boolean_TM.

    That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that >>>>>>>>>>> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the >>>>>>>>>>> same question is also proven to be incorrect.


    Nobody knows what the fuck you are talking about. You have to >>>>>>>>>> actually explain it. The same machine always gives the same >>>>>>>>>> return value on the same input.


    It has taken me twenty years to translate my intuitions into >>>>>>>>> words that can possibly understood.

    You failed.

    A pair of Turing Machines that return Boolean that are identical >>>>>>>>> besides their return value that cannot decide some property of >>>>>>>>> the same input are being asked the same YES/NO question having >>>>>>>>> no correct YES/NO answer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Formal_definition >>>>>>>> A Turing machine is ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩
    Show me two ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ that are identical besides >>>>>>>> their return value.
    You can't because you are talking nonsense. they don't exist.

    Turing machine descriptions that are identical finite strings
    except for the the 1/0 that they write the their exact same
    tape relative location.


    So they aren't identical.

    "Identical except ..." means DIFFERENT.

    So you LIE

    Not at all. I did not know these details until
     ...

    To claim something as truth without knowing it is to lie.

    Not it is not, it is being mistaken.
    Lies are telling known falsehoods with the intention to deceive.

    Opinions about that vary. But an unintended sin is still a sin.

    Is is never the case that a mistake is a lie.

    THAT is a lie:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

    lie 4 of 4 noun(2)

    1 b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
    true by the speaker or writer

    So, it is an acceptable definiton of a LIE to say something that is
    untrue even if beleived by the speaker.

    I have corrected several mistakes in the last two weeks.

    And thus LIED about it.


    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

    *This is my biggest mistake*
    H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ Cannot wait for its input to complete and then provide
    a halt status consistent with the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

    Execution trace of H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
    (1) H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
    (2) which begins at simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩
    (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
    (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
    (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
    Shows that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ sees the abort criteria before Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.


    But if H (H^) (H^) goes to qn goes to qn, then
    H^ (H^) will go to H^.H (H^) (H^) and on to qn and Halt.

    So, H was wrong in its decision.

    THe behavior of the machine described by the inpt continues even if its simulation is aborted, and it the actual behavior, and not the behavior
    of a partial simulation that matters.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 17 17:16:04 2024
    On 2024-03-15 14:41:44 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/15/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-03-15 01:12:19 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/14/2024 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 4:45 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/14/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/14/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
    On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for
    each quesiton.


    They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questions

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


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

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

    *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect question.


    Why, because it is NOT a LIE.

    You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

    Nope, common technical term.


    Cite a source.


    The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing
    Machines and there input to a result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERY
    member of that input set, means tha Halts is a valid mapping to ask a
    decider to try to decider.

    That part is true.
    Likewise when you ask a man that has never been married: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating tour wife?
    There are some men that have stopped beating their wife. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Right, because that question include a presumption of something not
    actually present.


    Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never unmarried men to YES/NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
    thus the question is incorrect for H/D



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


    In order to see that it is an incorrect question we must examine >>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in detail. Making sure to always ignore this key detail
    <is> cheating.

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Which isn;t the question at all, so you are just shown to be a stupid liar.

    The QUESTION is:

    Does the machine and input described by this input, Halt when run? >>>>>>>>>>>
    The question posed to Ĥ.H has no correct answer, thus not the >>>>>>>>>>> same question at all.

    But it DOES.

    Then tell me which element of:
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure that
    you explain why this element is correct and don't try to switch >>>>>>>>> to any other element outside of the above specified set.


    I didn't say there was.


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


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


    Then show me which contradicted answer is correct.



    If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy and loops so qn was >>>> the right answer.
    *The strawman deception is all that you have*

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
    ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))

    *The answer must come from elements of the above set*

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


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

    More specifically, the right answer contradict. Being contracdict
    by something irrelevant does not make it wrong.

    --
    Mikko

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