Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 11:52:05 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <v3rtbl$1ef5s$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> <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, 06 Jun 2024 10:52:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fffd95362214e16f0669e0987f250f28";
	logging-data="1522876"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pnD1qMD743xKjlkJywEYV"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1P5Qx9Ce5BaLSuq+Ix61HcggN8k=
Bytes: 2896

On 2024-06-06 02:09:35 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

To call a question incorrect just because one stupid machine cannot
correctly answer it is stupid.

-- 
Mikko