On 2024-03-17 17:01:29 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/17/2024 10:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-15 14:46:09 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/15/2024 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-13 14:19:22 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/13/2024 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-12 14:45:51 +0000, olcott said:
This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
The question "Is the specification of halt decider satisfiable?"
is not ill-formed.
Whenever undecidability is anchored epistemological antinomy
that means that the decider is trying to determine whether
a self-contradictory expression is true or false. All of these
cases are ill-formed.
The self-contradictory nature of the halting problem counter-example >>>>> input makes this input ill-formed.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar >>>>> undecidability proof...
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own >>>>> unprovability. 15 ...
(Gödel 1931:43-44)
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
I just showed how and why Gödel' comments are incorrect.
No, you didn't. You just quoted some but said nothing obout them.
"epistemological antinomy" means self-contradictory expression.
Whenever undecidability is anchored epistemological antinomy
that means that the decider is trying to determine whether
a self-contradictory expression is true or false. All of these
cases are ill-formed.
No, it doesn't. Being anchored and trying to determine are different
concepts. The former is a description of a situation, the latter
refers to an intentional effort.
--
Mikko
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)