Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Linz's proofs and other undecidable decision problems [LP as
 basis] [Mike Terry]
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 13:16:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 310
Message-ID: <v1loa5$1g957$1@dont-email.me>
References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uroob5$6c32$1@dont-email.me>
 <urpn7p$fetm$3@dont-email.me> <urq96s$m03b$9@dont-email.me>
 <urqmeg$p5i6$1@dont-email.me> <urqmv9$p6un$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2c69a25eecce5dc88cc3a979ee5cf9e4af2b67f.camel@gmail.com>
 <urqqo0$q1gd$1@dont-email.me>
 <94aaf99a4347e3fce0773fdd12001c3f03e3c1ea.camel@gmail.com>
 <urqrlk$q7ed$1@dont-email.me>
 <65a324cfb867c0219344ca9a767846930119784c.camel@gmail.com>
 <urqsr6$qgjj$1@dont-email.me>
 <1282f25b73bb9202a0acfc35c7a1e698eb05c5d6.camel@gmail.com>
 <urquoh$qrnj$1@dont-email.me>
 <c6d02e67407a43ebd50eab93dad01cb10dcc404b.camel@gmail.com>
 <urqviq$qrnj$2@dont-email.me>
 <a24a41a5fd0631d7dcca11af5bdc9819e3812cc7.camel@gmail.com>
 <urr0g7$r6eq$1@dont-email.me> <urregj$cbpo$2@i2pn2.org>
 <urrirc$12055$3@dont-email.me> <urrkup$cbpo$7@i2pn2.org>
 <urrrnf$13jnk$1@dont-email.me>
 <ROKdnSw4i6cUjn_4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <urt4qb$1bs5i$3@dont-email.me>
 <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 20:16:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c0c43cbc173c29c782eabc90f798410";
	logging-data="1582247"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TFhwehYZft7gX/0rGTVdy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yyhwSeUgvUl3al6k6UKmvY01Buk=
In-Reply-To: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 15834

On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 01/03/2024 17:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 01/03/2024 06:14, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/29/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> playing idiot everyday ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Selective memory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HP is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of determining, from a description
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program will finish running, or continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your English is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every one can see, but POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to 
>>>>>>>>>>> sci.logic !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this 
>>>>>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is
>>>>>>>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
>>>>>>>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
>>>>>>>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
>>>>>>>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
>>>>>>>> to the Halting Problem and many others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't 
>>>>>>> actually Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are 
>>>>>>> given certain inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No not at all simply make a Turing Machine that does this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LP = "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>> Boolean True(English, LP)  is false
>>>>>> Boolean True(English, ~LP) is false
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========