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: John Smith <news2@immibis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 19:29:59 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <v3q7an$q84q$2@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> <v3q63u$122u1$1@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 19:29:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e20281d0cb42f07e03be2b832eb82761";
	logging-data="860314"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/y/8eebkmOOXCXIghqFvDy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oJqiGfNilbqs1yDLYIiBdzFw2y0=
In-Reply-To: <v3q63u$122u1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4814

On 5/06/24 19:09, olcott wrote:
> 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).
> 


It's not "Can Carol" - it's "Does Carol"

Let's ask Carol. She says "no". She's wrong. If I ask John, and John 
says "yes", he is right. Carol is deterministic, so she always says "no" 
and never says "yes". There's no reason to talk about "if Carol says 
yes" because she doesn't say yes.

Now let's ask David: "Does David answer "no" to this question?" David 
says "yes". He's wrong. If I ask Alice, and Alice says "no", she is right.

Now let's ask Carol: "Does David answer "no" to this question?". Carol 
says "no". She's right.

Anyway, what was the point of all this? Oh, right.  Carol said she can 
answer ALL QUESTIONS correctly. I just proved that she's a massive liar, 
because she can't answer my question correctly.

I can ask Carol "what is the square root of a wombat?" and she can't 
answer, but it's not a real question so it doesn't count. But "Does 
Carol answer "no" to this question?" is a real question.

Did you notice that you started talking to me as soon as I changed my name?