Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:09:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v3q63u$122u1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me> <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3og5t$328ec$9@i2pn2.org> <v3oh4q$pi6u$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3ohim$jthg$3@dont-email.me> <v3ohql$pi6u$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3q5pt$q84p$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 19:09:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbcb5a2e000d59c1dda264f94a647a93";
	logging-data="1117121"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3+Z+zEzDTIt4pXwKJnzRy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nKwpxvJk2b/grkpPfDlMHwHCUsg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3q5pt$q84p$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3795

On 6/5/2024 12:03 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5/06/24 04:16, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/4/2024 9:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 5/06/24 04:05, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> But the question it asks is an OBJECTIVE question that doesn't 
>>>>> depend on who it is asked of.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When H is asked about the behavior of a Machine that is programmed
>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it says then the context that it is H
>>>> that is being asked is an inherent aspect of the meaning of this
>>>> question and cannot be correctly ignored.
>>>
>>> Every machine does something. It either halts, or it doesn't. If a 
>>> machine halts, then it halts even if you ask someone different. If 
>>> the machine halts when I ask Bob whether it halts and he says it 
>>> halts, then it still halts when I ask Alice whether it halts and she 
>>> says it doesn't halt. Alice is wrong. The linguistic context doesn't 
>>> change the fact that it halts.
>>
>> Professor Hehner proves my same point with Carol's question.
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> Richard found a loophole that I fixed and told professor Hehner about:
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>
> 
> It's not "Can Carol" - it's "Does Carol"

*Disagreeing with verified facts does not count as any rebuttal*
I inserted "(yes/no)" to close the loophole that Richard found.

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
Let's ask Carol. If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no” is the
correct answer for her, so “yes” is incorrect. If she says “no”, she's
saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”, which is her answer. We
are assuming for this and all subsequent questions that the only
acceptable answers are “yes” and “no”, and in this case, both answers
are incorrect. Carol cannot answer the question correctly. Now let's ask
Dave. He says “no”, and he is correct because Carol cannot correctly
answer “no”. So (6) is subjective because it is a consistent,
satisfiable specification for some agent (anyone other than Carol), and
an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification for some agent (Carol).

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