Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:13:07 -0700 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:13:08 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1789967"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5084 Lines: 92 On 3/12/24 8:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/12/24 7:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/12/2024 9:17 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 13/03/24 02:47, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/12/2024 8:05 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>> On 13/03/24 01:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 7:10 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>> So which part of ⟨Q, Γ, b, Σ, δ, q0, F⟩ is different? >>>>>>> Exactly one element of Q differs by writing a 1 instead of a 0. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's part of δ but this mistake doesn't matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> It wasn't clear whether you were talking about a Turing machine >>>>>> that was somehow identical but gave a different return value, or >>>>>> one that was not identical. Now you have explained it is not >>>>>> identical. >>>>>> >>>>> They are identical except for their return value that is specified >>>>> in a single state that is different. >>>>> >>>>> *This means that they implement the exact same algorithm* >>>> >>>> OK. Well, one of them gets the right answer and one of them gets the >>>> wrong answer. What is the confusion? >>> >>> The Linz Ĥ.H machine gets the wrong answer on its own >>> machine description no matter how its Linz H is defined. >>> >>> This means that it gets the wrong answer on YES and the >>> wrong answer on NO. >>> >> >> 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 because > epistemological antinomies are not rejected as semantically invalid input. But they aren't epistemological antinomies, they are description of Turing Macnine, and you are proved to be a stupid liar. > >> For EACH SEPARATE definition of H, and thus H^, we have a different >> question. >> > > They are all the same epistemological antinomy category of question. Nope. The question HAS an answer for this input, as long as the description is of the ACTUAL TURING MACHINE H^ and not your fake "template" which you like to lie about. You are just proving your total incompetence at the topic, and that you are just a pathological liar. Remember, H has been DEFINED at this point, (form the arbitrary selection) and thus so has H^ and thus H^ (H^) has definite behavior, so the question has a definite answer, and you can't talk of H giving any answer other than the one its algorithm generates. So, you prove yourself to be a pathetic ignorant hypocritical pathological lying idiot. > >> Note, the machine H^ isn't DEFINED to just get H^ as an input. >> >> H^ is defined to get as an input, the description of ANY Turing >> Machine, and to ask H what that machine applied to its description >> will do, and then it does the opposite. >> >> Thus, for every different H we go to test, we get a DIFFERENT H^ >> machine. and when we look at the question to H (or H^.H) about the >> description (H^) (H^), >> >> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qn, then H^ (H^) goes to qn too and halts, so >> the correct answer would have been to go to qy. >> >> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^ (H^) goes to qy too, and loops, so >> the correct answer would have been to go to qn. >> >> So, each case HAS a correct answer, just not the one that H (or H^.H) >> goes to, >> >> So yes, which ever one it goes to (and a given machine will only go to >> one with this input) will be wrong, but the other one would have been >> right, and an H* machine that answer the opposite of H would have been >> correct. >