On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
Objective and Subjective SpecificationsOn 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:Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the best you can say?
*The strawman deception is all that you have* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it DOES.On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.
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:*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
that is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.value of a self-contradictory expression the requirementeach quesiton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questionsNot quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for
Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the right answer for D.
Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
for H to do this is bogus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth value to the expression
*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.
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 TuringThat part is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise when you ask a man that has never been married:
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
synonymous with "no".
Here is the one where the loophole is closed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
that question proves that it is a different question when posed
to Carol than when posed to anyone else.
Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely
objective question.
The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking at it.
Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can be given
to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will be the same
irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right answer, and some will
give the wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't
make the question subjective.
The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try to
redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where we prove
that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of those are
SEPERATE Halting question (not all one question) and each of those
seperate questions have a correct answer.
Nope.
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
Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
(that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Question doesn't refer to H at all.
The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H
is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carol is a volitional being.
When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
Nope.
Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The only reason that:
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
The only reason that:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to Carol
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is contradicted.
Nope.
You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE >>>>>>>>>>>> claims again.
Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have no basis.
You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where anything
goes and rhetoric rules.
*You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
*Carol's question posed to Carol*
*is not contradicted just like*
*Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted*
Yes, I have.
YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer!
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
(b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
thus it is the wrong answer.
What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
(a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop (always does the opposite of what it says).
(b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt (always does the opposite of what it says).
Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and it is >>>>>> programmed to answer "no" even though the correct answer is "yes". >>>>>>
Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine that uses it. >>>>
You don't seem to understand what answer is.
And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return, so you
can't assume any.
H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the wrong answer >>>> for the H^ built from it.
*Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can give it.
That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
answering by being gagged as you suggest.
It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
"logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
professor Hehner.
These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
Carol's Question posed to Carol:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a correct answer. >>
You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
wording of this question is not changed.
On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:(b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purely
Objective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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:Is a false claim about a strawman deception really the best you can say?
*The strawman deception is all that you have* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it DOES.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:https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
that is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
each quesiton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questionsNot quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for
Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the right answer for D.
Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
for H to do this is bogus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth value to the expression
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect question.There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that exists.
I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.Why, because it is NOT a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question.
Nope, common technical term. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cite a source. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Have you stopped beating tour wife? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped beating their wife.Machines and there input to a result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERYThe fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing
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:
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
synonymous with "no".
Here is the one where the loophole is closed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
that question proves that it is a different question when posed
to Carol than when posed to anyone else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
objective question.
The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking at it.
Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can be given
to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will be the same
irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right answer, and some will
give the wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't
make the question subjective.
The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try to
redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where we prove
that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of those are
SEPERATE Halting question (not all one question) and each of those
seperate questions have a correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope.
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
Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
(that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Question doesn't refer to H at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carol is a volitional being.
When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
Nope.
Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The only reason that:
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
The only reason that:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to Carol
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is contradicted.
Nope.
You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
claims again.
Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have no basis.
You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where anything
goes and rhetoric rules.
*You have provided zero correct reasoning of how*
*Carol's question posed to Carol*
*is not contradicted just like*
*Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted* >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I have.
YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer! >>>>>>>>>>>>
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted. >>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
thus it is the wrong answer.
What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
(a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>>
Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and it is >>>>>>>> programmed to answer "no" even though the correct answer is "yes". >>>>>>>>
Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine that uses it. >>>>>>
You don't seem to understand what answer is.
And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return, so you >>>>>> can't assume any.
H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the wrong answer >>>>>> for the H^ built from it.
*Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can give it.
That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
answering by being gagged as you suggest.
It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
"logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
professor Hehner.
These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
Carol's Question posed to Carol:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a correct answer.
You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
someone may answer "no".
That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
wording of this question is not changed.
A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked.
If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong interpretation. >>
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
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
(b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
On 3/17/2024 12:21 PM, immibis wrote:
On 17/03/24 18:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:(b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purelyObjective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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:
*The strawman deception is all that you have* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then tell me which element of: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure thatBut it DOES. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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:Cite a source. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing
On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
that is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
each quesiton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questionsNot quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for
Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the right answer for D.
Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
for H to do this is bogus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth value to the expression
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect question.There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that exists.
I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.Why, because it is NOT a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question.
Nope, common technical term. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NOactually present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Machines and there input to a result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERYHave you stopped beating tour wife? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped beating their wife.
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:
Right, because that question include a presumption of something not
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
synonymous with "no".
Here is the one where the loophole is closed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
that question proves that it is a different question when posed
to Carol than when posed to anyone else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
objective question.
The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking at it.
Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can be given
to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will be the same
irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right answer, and some will
give the wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't
make the question subjective.
The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try to
redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where we prove
that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of those are
SEPERATE Halting question (not all one question) and each of those
seperate questions have a correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope.
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
Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
(that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Question doesn't refer to H at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carol is a volitional being.
When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
Nope.
Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
The only reason that:
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
The only reason that:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to Carol
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is contradicted.
Nope.
You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
claims again.
Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have no basis.
You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where anything
goes and rhetoric rules.
*You have provided zero correct reasoning of how* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
*is not contradicted just like*
*Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I have.
YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted. >>>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
thus it is the wrong answer.
What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
(a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>>>>
Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and it is >>>>>>>>>> programmed to answer "no" even though the correct answer is "yes". >>>>>>>>>>
Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine that uses it.
You don't seem to understand what answer is.
And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return, so you >>>>>>>> can't assume any.
H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the wrong answer >>>>>>>> for the H^ built from it.
*Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can give it. >>>>>>
That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
answering by being gagged as you suggest.
It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
"logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
professor Hehner.
These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
Carol's Question posed to Carol:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a correct answer.
You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
someone may answer "no".
That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
wording of this question is not changed.
A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked.
If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong interpretation.
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
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question (a)/(b): >>> (a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
(b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*
The same question has the same correct answer no matter which halting
decider is asked. That you refuse to understand this reveals your
dishonesty.
That what you just said is counter-factual may be too difficult you
too understand. Try to explain how when Carol answers "no" this is
incorrect whereas when anyone else answers "no" this is correct.
On 3/17/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/17/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are:
On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:(b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purelyObjective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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:
*The strawman deception is all that you have* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then tell me which element of: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure thatBut it DOES. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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:Cite a source. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing
On 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
that is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
each quesiton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questionsNot quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for
Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the right answer for D.
Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
for H to do this is bogus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth value to the expression
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect question.There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that exists.
I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.Why, because it is NOT a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question.
Nope, common technical term. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NOactually present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Machines and there input to a result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERYHave you stopped beating tour wife? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped beating their wife.
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:
Right, because that question include a presumption of something not
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
synonymous with "no".
Here is the one where the loophole is closed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
that question proves that it is a different question when posed
to Carol than when posed to anyone else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
objective question.
The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking at it.
Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can be given
to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will be the same
irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right answer, and some will
give the wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't
make the question subjective.
The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try to
redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where we prove
that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of those are
SEPERATE Halting question (not all one question) and each of those
seperate questions have a correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope.
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
Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
(that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Question doesn't refer to H at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carol is a volitional being.
When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything remains the same.
Nope.
Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
The only reason that:
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
The only reason that:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to Carol
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is contradicted.
Nope.
You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
claims again.
Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have no basis.
You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where anything
goes and rhetoric rules.
*You have provided zero correct reasoning of how* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
*is not contradicted just like*
*Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I have.
YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are.
Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted. >>>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
thus it is the wrong answer.
What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
(a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>>>>
Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and it is >>>>>>>>>> programmed to answer "no" even though the correct answer is "yes". >>>>>>>>>>
Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine that uses it.
You don't seem to understand what answer is.
And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return, so you >>>>>>>> can't assume any.
H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the wrong answer >>>>>>>> for the H^ built from it.
*Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can give it. >>>>>>
That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
answering by being gagged as you suggest.
It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
"logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
professor Hehner.
These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
Carol's Question posed to Carol:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
and
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a correct answer.
You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
someone may answer "no".
That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
wording of this question is not changed.
A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked.
If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong interpretation.
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
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question (a)/(b): >>> (a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
(b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*
*THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
*The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
*of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word question*
*is correct or incorrect*
But the question, "Does the machine this input describes Halt when
run?" doesn't depend on who you ask. (Unless your input isn't actually
a Computation)
Your "Carol" question is about Carol being able to answer, so it
naturally depend on Carol.
THe Halting Question doesn't mention the decider in any way, so doesn't.
Yes, the particular question include a copy of one decider, but that
doesn't refer to that decider in any specific way, so doesn't make the
question change.
The question is the same: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
The answer is the same (assuming a simulating halt decider): YES.
For H1 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is CORRECT // waits for more execution traces
For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is INCORRECT
Thus the same question has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
On 3/17/2024 7:26 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 00:35, olcott wrote:When H1 says YES it is right.
On 3/17/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/17/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 10:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-16 18:53:57 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/16/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/16/2024 10:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 11:24 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 04:52, olcott wrote:The possible answers that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gives are: >>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.Hqy then loop (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.Hqn then halt (always does the opposite of what it says). >>>>>>>>>>>
On 3/15/2024 10:15 PM, immibis wrote:
On 16/03/24 00:17, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:(b) has a correct answer, which is "yes"
On 3/15/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 5:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/15/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/15/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 2:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 12:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is IRRELEVENT to the Halting Question, as it is a purelyObjective and Subjective Specifications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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:
*The strawman deception is all that you have* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then tell me which element of: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩)) is correct and make sure thatBut it DOES. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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:In order to see that it is an incorrect question we must examine
On 3/13/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:there is no mapping from never unmarried men to YES/NO
actually present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NOOn 3/13/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
On 3/13/24 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
On 3/13/2024 11:44 AM, immibis wrote:that is the requirment for ANY SPECIFIC H.
On 13/03/24 04:55, olcott wrote:value of a self-contradictory expression the requirement
On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
each quesiton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all gets the wrong answer on a whole class of questionsNot quite. It always gets the wrong answer, but only one of them for
Wrong. You said. yourself. that H1 gets the right answer for D.
Since it is a logical impossibility to determine the truth
for H to do this is bogus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows you are just a LIAR, as there IS a truth value to the expression
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
*Lying about me being a liar may possibly cost your soul*
This proves that H(D,D) is being asked an incorrect question.There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D) that exists.
I invented it so I get to stipulate its meaning.Why, because it is NOT a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even know the definiton of an incorrect question.
Have you stopped beating tour wife? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some men that have stopped beating their wife.Machines and there input to a result of Halting / Non-Halting for EVERYNope, common technical term. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite a source. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there DOES exist a mapping Halt(M,d) that maps all Turing
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:
Right, because that question include a presumption of something not
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NOAlthough there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs 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.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Credit goes to you for finding the loophole in Carol's original
question: Can anyone correctly answer “no” to this question?
Carol can correctly answer that question with any word that is
synonymous with "no".
Here is the one where the loophole is closed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
The fact that anyone besides Carol can correctly answer that
question with a NO and Carol cannot possibly correctly answer
that question proves that it is a different question when posed
to Carol than when posed to anyone else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
objective question.
The behavior of the input is INDEPENDENT of the decider looking at it.
Note, a given H^ is built on a given H, and no other, but can be given
to any decider to answer, and the correct answer will be the same
irrespective of you ask. Some will give the right answer, and some will
give the wrong answer. The fact that that H is in the latter doesn't
make the question subjective.
The only way to make the Halting Question subjective is to try to
redefine it so the input changes with who you ask, but it doesn't.
The changing H^ to match the H only happens in the Meta, where we prove
that we can find an H^ that any H will get wrong, but each of those are
SEPERATE Halting question (not all one question) and each of those
seperate questions have a correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope.
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
Carol's question posed to Carol <is> isomorphic to input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to every Ĥ.H shown above. The fact that some other TM such as H1
(that is not contradicted) can determine a correct answer proves
that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a different question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Question doesn't refer to H at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ posed to Ĥ.H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isomorphic to this question posed to Carol: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Nope. and that LIE is a source of a lot of your ERRORS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Carol is a volitional being.
When we hypothesize that Carol is the name of an AI machine
everything remains the same.
Nope.
Once Carol become deterministic, then the whole thing changes.
The only reason that:
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Ĥ.H is contradicted.
The only reason that:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? posed to Carol
cannot be correctly answered is that the specific Carol is contradicted.
Nope.
You aren't showing any ERRORS I made but just asserting your FALSE
claims again.
Inability to show WHY my description was wrong just proves you have no basis.
You are just demonstrating that you don't understand how logic works.
It seems you think this is just some abstract philosophy where anything
goes and rhetoric rules.
*You have provided zero correct reasoning of how* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Carol's question posed to Carol*
*is not contradicted just like*
*Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H is contradicted* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I have.
YOU have provided ZERO reasoning how they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dos H^ (H^) Halt? even when posed to H^.H has an answer! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H)
their respective question (a)/(b):
(a) Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Does Ĥ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ gives that answer it is contradicted by Ĥ,
thus it is the wrong answer.
What does "When Ĥ gives that answer" mean?
Ĥ is a program which can only do what it is programmed, and it is >>>>>>>>>>>> programmed to answer "no" even though the correct answer is "yes". >>>>>>>>>>>>
Nut (a) isn't AN ANSWER, as it isn't given to any machine that uses it.
You don't seem to understand what answer is.
And, H^ is not defined to apply any semantic to its return, so you >>>>>>>>>> can't assume any.
H is defined to give an answer, but all H's will give the wrong answer
for the H^ built from it.
*Only because every answer that they give is contradicted*
So, you adit there *IS* a correct answer, just that no H can give it. >>>>>>>>
That is the same incorrect excuse that the original 2004
author of Carol's question: Daryl McCullough still gives.
For years I repeated the Daryl McCullough version: Jack's
question as Bill's question forgetting who wrote it.
It is not the case that Ĥ.H or Carol are prevented from
answering by being gagged as you suggest.
It is that every answer they do provide is contradicted
thus making a correct answer a logical impossibility.
"logical impossibility" were words provided to me by
professor Hehner.
These words replaced my reference to baking an angel
food case using only house brick for ingredients. This
is actually possible when someone rearranges the atoms
of the bricks as Professor Hehner pointed out.
Carol's Question posed to Carol:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? >>>>>>>>> and
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
So, you don't understand that: "Does this input Hat?" has a correct answer.
You continue to fail to take into account that the discourse
context of who as asked changes the meaning of the question.
If T(I) halts it halts, no matter whom you ask, even if
someone may answer "no".
That who is asked changes the meaning of the question
is proven by the fact that the same correct answer that
others provide is incorrect for Carol and Ĥ.H and the
wording of this question is not changed.
A halting question has the same meaning, no matter whom it is asked. >>>>>> If someone interpreters it differently, that is juat a wrong interpretation.
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
When posed to each entity (Carol/Ĥ.H) their respective question (a)/(b): >>>>> (a) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
(b) Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
lacks a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
*Incorrect questions do not lack answers they lack correct answers*
*THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED*
*The discourse context of who is asked is the determining factor*
*of whether the very same answer to the same word-for-word question* >>>>> *is correct or incorrect*
But the question, "Does the machine this input describes Halt when
run?" doesn't depend on who you ask. (Unless your input isn't actually >>>> a Computation)
Your "Carol" question is about Carol being able to answer, so it
naturally depend on Carol.
THe Halting Question doesn't mention the decider in any way, so doesn't. >>>>
Yes, the particular question include a copy of one decider, but that
doesn't refer to that decider in any specific way, so doesn't make the >>>> question change.
The question is the same: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
The answer is the same (assuming a simulating halt decider): YES.
For H1 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is CORRECT // waits for more execution traces
For H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ this answer is INCORRECT
Wrong, it's correct in both cases because Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts in all cases.
When H says YES it is wrong.
On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:*When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
When H1 says YES it is right.
When H says YES it is wrong.
Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and only if
D(D) halts.
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 D(D);
12 }
On 3/18/2024 11:19 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:*When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
When H1 says YES it is right.
When H says YES it is wrong.
Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and only if >>>> D(D) halts.
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 D(D);
12 }
That would be a different D. The facts that Hah(Dah,Dah) returns TRUE
and Dah gets stuck at line 05 do not prove that Han(Dan,Dan) returns
TRUE and Dan gets stuck at line 05.
*D is always the exact same finite string of machine code bytes*
On 3/18/2024 6:35 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:10, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:19 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:*When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
When H1 says YES it is right.
When H says YES it is wrong.
Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and only if >>>>>> D(D) halts.
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 D(D);
12 }
That would be a different D. The facts that Hah(Dah,Dah) returns TRUE
and Dah gets stuck at line 05 do not prove that Han(Dan,Dan) returns
TRUE and Dan gets stuck at line 05.
*D is always the exact same finite string of machine code bytes*
The argument to a halting decider must be a self-contained program and
the input to that program. The same finite string must always have the
same behaviour.
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
is self-contained yet still refers to an infinite set of encoding of H
such that the answer Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is always contradicted.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 23:37:19 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,144 |