Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:28:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3r6s1$354ia$6@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>
 <v3qb1a$34b9u$14@i2pn2.org> <v3r5ov$1at2m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 02:28:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3314250"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3r5ov$1at2m$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3507
Lines: 44

On 6/5/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/5/2024 1:33 PM, joes wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> To expect a correct answer to an incorrect question has
> always been very stupid.

But there is nothing "incorrect" about the Halting Question, it always 
has a specific and precise answer (even if we don't know it) and it has 
some very useful cases that we would like to be able to solve.

So, what do you see actually wrong with that actual question?

The problem is you don't understand the field enough to really 
understand what the question means, and that is what gets you in 
trouble, you guess (incorrectly) about too many parts of the theory, 
that you just show your total ignorance of the field.

> 
>> This one was
>> specifically constructed to be unanswerable by this machine. The
>> equivalent translation would be "Can YOU answer No?".
>>
> 
>