Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:33:14 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3qb1a$34b9u$14@i2pn2.org>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:33:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3288382"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2630
Lines: 23

Am Wed, 05 Jun 2024 12:09:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:
> (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).
But that's like running a different machine. That's not interesting.
We wanted to see a machine that can answer ALL questions. This one was
specifically constructed to be unanswerable by this machine. The
equivalent translation would be "Can YOU answer No?".

-- 
joes