Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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: <usr94j$1mk0f$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <usq5uq$e4sh$1@dont-email.me> <usq715$ed9g$3@dont-email.me>
 <usq8rh$etp9$1@dont-email.me> <usqb4a$1l201$32@i2pn2.org>
 <usqcts$froc$1@dont-email.me> <usqh4h$1lvbo$3@i2pn2.org>
 <usqhoj$gtih$2@dont-email.me> <usql2f$1m5uu$2@i2pn2.org>
 <usqmdi$hu9o$1@dont-email.me> <usqn3v$i33s$1@dont-email.me>
 <usqo6h$hubd$3@dont-email.me> <usqp0u$ie7v$1@dont-email.me>
 <usqq3p$iit2$1@dont-email.me> <usqqto$ipr7$1@dont-email.me>
 <usqrcq$iit2$3@dont-email.me> <usqu5h$jamh$1@dont-email.me>
 <usr0in$jp1l$2@dont-email.me> <usr2bv$k5kt$1@dont-email.me>
 <usr3ph$kdfp$2@dont-email.me> <usr7oo$1mk0f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <usr83l$on40$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:13:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1789967"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <usr83l$on40$5@dont-email.me>
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.
>