Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFZlcmlmaWVkIGZhY3QgdGhhdCDEpC5IIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4p+pIGFuZCBIIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk4p+pIGhhdmUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGJlaGF2?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ior_ZFC_--new_focus--?=
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:11:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
 <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
 <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
 <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
 <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
 <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
 <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
 <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
 <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
 <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
 <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
 <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
 <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org>
 <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org>
 <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org>
 <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:11:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
	logging-data="4126216"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+l7v0Z+a3AjRQijNn4pdnb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b3Gg8P3Jt/weU/Sir2pGmh9iXpk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6200

On 3/11/2024 7:09 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 11/03/24 14:19, olcott wrote:
>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
> 
> You agree. And since every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the same 
> answer as H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (it is stipulated) then obviously H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ also 
> gets the wrong answer.
> 

This proves that both Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ are being asked
a YES/NO question where bot YES and NO are the wrong answer.

>>> It is also true that every instance of that question has a right 
>>> answer, it just isn't the one that H gives.
>>>
>>
>> Every decision problem that includes undecidable instances only has
>> these instances because there is something wrong with the decision
>> problem specification.
> 
> so what is wrong with it?
> 
Whenever anyone or anything is asks a YES/NO question
where both YES and NO are the wrong answer the whole
question is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.

>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt
>>     test exists and then provides S as an example of a program
>>     that the test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all.
>>     It is not even a conceptual object, and this is due to
>>     inconsistencies in the specification of the halting function.
>>     (Stoddart: 2017)
> 
> If you tell me a consistent universal halt test I will tell you a 
> consistent program that the test cannot handle. It will definitely be a 
> program. There will be no valid rebuttal that it isn't a program at all.
> 

The gist of his idea is correct even if the exact words are not.

>> *This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
>> *This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
>> *This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
>>
>> When we ask H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩:
>> Does your input halt on its input?
> 
> We do not ask it that. We ask it whether Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩. This is 
> an objective specification, not subjective.
> 

When we ask Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ whether Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩
both YES and NO are the wrong answer for Ĥ.H.

When we ask someone: Are you more than 20 years old?
who you ask changes the correct answer.

We can do several different things to abolish the self-contradictory 
question. One of them is rephrase the question:
Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?

This question cannot be contradicted and is the same question
that is asked below:

Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
*MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct*
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H 
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running 
unless aborted then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D 
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

>> meaning: Would Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input, then H gets the wrong answer.
>>
>> When we ask the exact same question meaning:
>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
> 
> We can't ask that question because it is subjective. And that is a 
> different question.
> 
H(D,D) and H1(D,D) are fully implemented to answer that question
several different ways. Two for recursive simulation and one each
for infinite loops and infinite recursion.

>> Then every H always gets the right answer.
> 
> If you ask me to recite Einstein's equations, I will answer wrong. If 
> you ask me 1+1, I will answer right. That I answer correctly to one 
> question has no relevance to that I answer incorrectly to another question.

H(D,D) and H1(D,D) correctly answer that question for three
complete categories of non-terminating behavior. It may be
unlimited variation within the category.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer