Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:24:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 241
Message-ID: <v0oe2i$1qgpk$2@dont-email.me>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <uvq359$1doq3$4@i2pn2.org>
 <uvrbvs$2acf7$1@dont-email.me> <uvs70t$1h01f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvsgcl$2i80k$1@dont-email.me> <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvubo2$34nh3$1@dont-email.me> <uvvsap$3i5q8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v00mf6$3nu0r$1@dont-email.me> <v02gu5$6quf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v038om$bitp$2@dont-email.me> <v05b0k$sivu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v05r5e$vvml$2@dont-email.me> <v05vl4$1165d$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0679k$12sq2$1@dont-email.me> <v07r2j$1h57l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v08gn4$1lpta$2@dont-email.me> <v0ag7u$27jkb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0b8np$2d4ja$1@dont-email.me> <v0c317$2538n$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0c7fn$2k0tc$1@dont-email.me> <v0d3h1$2t938$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0doho$31mkn$2@dont-email.me> <v0forg$3j1dk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0gblt$3nknm$1@dont-email.me> <v0icoj$8qvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0iv76$cu99$2@dont-email.me> <v0l1pl$v0o0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lhs5$12aq4$2@dont-email.me> <v0noj0$1li21$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oar7$1pbn5$6@dont-email.me> <v0odbj$1qfnb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:24:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73fb146966bd3083c21813597b100895";
	logging-data="1917748"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1856isdNsSBi3jEPVDWWC07"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ki3kd4GPYELRhUkHpbCXZIxMI+c=
In-Reply-To: <v0odbj$1qfnb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12902

On 4/29/2024 10:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-29 14:28:55 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 4/29/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-28 13:10:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-27 13:39:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/27/2024 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-26 13:54:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 00:17:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. This means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory that is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device. Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Nonsense} then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills. Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect or otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher is essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you postings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. But that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems separately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to construe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with some input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that handles this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Input D*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines the halt status of its inputs say 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that believe that H(D,D) must report on the behavior of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>>>>>>>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>>>>>>>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========