On 12/24/23 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.
Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.
As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
According to the conventional understanding of the halting problem
when the above H is asked:
Does the direct execution of D(D) halt on its input?
both Yes and No are the wrong answer because D was
intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever H says.
Nope, only the answer that this H gives is wrong, and this H can only
give one answer, the one its programming says it will give.
You don't seem to understand deterministic entities.
Maybe because you logic isn't deterministic, but can give answers at random.
That the halting problem is defined to allow self-contradictory
inputs does not actually place any limit on computation.
Nope.
The inability to correctly answer self-contradictory (thus
incorrect) questions does not place any actual limit on anyone
of anything.
Nope.
If I ask you: What time it is (yes or no)?
We cannot correctly conclude that you are stupid or ignorant on
the basis that you cannot correctly answer this incorrect question.
But the question HAD a correct answer, just not the one that this H was programmed to give, so your strawman just shows you have straw for brains.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)