Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --incorrect question
 instance--
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:05:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <utfq4n$1ovob$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@dont-email.me> <ut8e9k$8nr$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut8gic$27bqb$9@i2pn2.org> <ut8go9$l2l$2@dont-email.me>
 <ut8ide$27bqb$10@i2pn2.org> <ut8j23$t3b$3@dont-email.me>
 <ut8lhu$27bqa$10@i2pn2.org> <ut9k08$7i77$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut9li5$7pdg$1@dont-email.me> <ut9ufd$9qc8$2@dont-email.me>
 <uta5j7$b8d6$1@dont-email.me> <uta7n9$c11s$1@dont-email.me>
 <uta88f$c3ln$1@dont-email.me> <uta8rr$c91o$1@dont-email.me>
 <utaam1$ckrm$1@dont-email.me> <utab3j$cn6l$2@dont-email.me>
 <utac8g$csl0$1@dont-email.me> <utacqt$d328$1@dont-email.me>
 <utau6c$2b09e$10@i2pn2.org> <utb28m$ksn2$1@dont-email.me>
 <utb40e$2be23$1@i2pn2.org> <utb4pf$lati$1@dont-email.me>
 <utblkl$ohf9$1@dont-email.me> <utc7up$sds6$2@dont-email.me>
 <ute8b4$1dckc$1@dont-email.me> <utem9s$1g66g$3@dont-email.me>
 <utf1c0$2gfnv$1@i2pn2.org> <utf1lp$1iphf$1@dont-email.me>
 <utf5b3$2gfnv$2@i2pn2.org> <utf8kk$1kijq$1@dont-email.me>
 <utff2r$2gfnv$4@i2pn2.org> <utfg1a$1mfeg$1@dont-email.me>
 <utfpds$2gfnv$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:06:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ea8dd002d52919ad76b44ab57fe82cde";
	logging-data="1867531"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lEzZhbAeM0fglxF+4HmiJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PNANVfk1kDilgddQWLS4F0oxLX8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <utfpds$2gfnv$13@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5149

On 3/20/2024 5:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/20/24 4:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/20/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/20/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Since I defined the term "incorrect question" and I defined the
>>>> term "incorrect question instance" I cannot possibly have defined
>>>> them incorrectly. These are stipulative definitions.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>>>
>>> And by stipulating your definition, you havve disconnected it from 
>>> any other use in the theory, in prticular, just because some question 
>>> turns out to be an Olcott-Incorrect Question doesn't me it is an 
>>> improper question to put to a decider to see if it meets its defintion.
>>>
>>
>> Every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ says Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts and fails to halt.
>> Every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   says Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt and then halts.
>>
>> Every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that answers YES is wrong.
> 
> Because for THAT H^, the answer is NO
> 

"That Ĥ" that you are referring to is not any actual Ĥ at all.
every element of the in finite set Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong
answer because whatever answer it provides is contradicted.

<snip>

> The question was always "Correct" as it always had a correct answer for 
> all cases.
> 

There is never any correct answer for any of these cases: Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

> All you have done is say that a decider can be considered Olcott-Correct 
> even if it LIES and gives wrong answers, because those cases were just 
> "incorrect question instances" for it.
> 

We either change the question or we keep the question the same
and reject the erroneous inputs.

> Thus, you have destroyed the ability to gain knowledge by computing, as 
> we can never know if the answer was right unless we can show that the 
> decider did give the right answer, which is an uncomputable problem, so 
> we can never know something we didn't already know the answer to.
> 

Actually no one has showed that my abort decider ever gets
the wrong answer. Instead of this the dishonest claim is
made that it always gets the wrong answer.

>>
>>>
>>>> An {incorrect question instance} is any question that has no
>>>> correct answer from the one that this question was posed to.
>>>
>>> And, if the "one" that question was posed to, by reason of the 
>>> "definition" of that "one" just doesn't give the correct answer, are 
>>> you saying that is enough to make that question instance invalid?
>>>
>>
>> When the only reason that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ fails to provide a correct
>> answer is that every answer is contradicted then these incorrect
>> question instances must be tossed out.
>>
> 
> Excpet that now we can't tell which are those cases. 

If you quit lying about the abort decider being always wrong
we can move on to seeing if there are any counter-examples
that show it is not always right.


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