On 3/15/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the
problem specification requires an integer
and this integer is not allowed to be
construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that >>>>>>>>>>>> meets the specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value. >>>>>>>>>>>>

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such >>>>>>>>>>>> that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>>>>>> for all X and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of
the counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies this >>>>>>>>>> definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say. >>>>>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a >>>>>>>> concept taught to and understood by high school students more
that 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction
that our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction >>>>>>>>> proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below
requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then
find the above question can't be answered, therefore the
assumption that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a
BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM

BOGUS FORM
*This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input*
What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return
for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that
reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y.

Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time is it?"

Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.

It is the title of the post.

Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return
are the same in that both Boolean values are incorrect.

When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong
answer to a Boolean question the question itself
is incorrect and must be rejected as erroneous.

Calling any such question or decision problem
instance any kind of undecidable is flat out dishonest.

The kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
prevents a True(X) predicate that could otherwise
eviscerate Nazi lies the moment that are spoken.

But the ACTUAL question of the problem has a correct answer, just not
the one that the decider gives, so it is just incorrect.

The fact that we can show that for every possible attempt at a decider,
that there is an instance of the problem that it will get wrong, shows
that the problem is undecidable.

Note, EVERY instance has a correct answer, just no one attempted decider
gives them all.

Your problem is that a given decider can't give both possible answers
for a given input, as the one answer it gives is fixed by the code of
the decider, and it is a DIFFERENT decider that gives that other answer,
and the answer it gives will be correct for the actual input you gave to
the first decider, because the input was fixed and didn't change.

Your problem is you lie to yourself that you can make a non-program that
you call your decider, that takes a non-program you call as your input,
and LIE to say it is the equivalent of the actual program decider given
an actual program input.

Your decider fails to be a program, as it looks at things not part of
the input to make its decision, as you have made it clear that the input
does NOT include the actual code of the decider as part of itself.

And this makes your input not a program, as it doesn't include all of
its code.

You need to exclude the code for the decider as part of the input, as
that make it clear where the fraud is, as you change that code when you
give the input to the other decider.

Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you works is based on FRAUD,
and that you are so stupid you believe your own lies.

You are so stupid, you don't understand the error of not following the
rules of the system.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/15/25 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the
problem specification requires an integer
and this integer is not allowed to be
construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets the specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all X and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>> this definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say. >>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a >>>>>>>>>> concept taught to and understood by high school students more >>>>>>>>>> that 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction >>>>>>>>> that our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below >>>>>>>>>> requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then >>>>>>>> find the above question can't be answered, therefore the
assumption that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a
BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM

BOGUS FORM
*This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input*
What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return
for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that
reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y.

Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time is
it?"

Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.

It is the title of the post.

Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return
are the same in that both Boolean values are incorrect.

When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong
answer to a Boolean question the question itself
is incorrect and must be rejected as erroneous.

Calling any such question or decision problem
instance any kind of undecidable is flat out dishonest.

The kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
prevents a True(X) predicate that could otherwise
eviscerate Nazi lies the moment that are spoken.

But the ACTUAL question of the problem has a correct answer, just not
the one that the decider gives, so it is just incorrect.

The inability to do the logically impossible is dishonestly
referred to as undecidability.

WHat is dishonest about it?

Remember, YOU are the one that has admitted that you whole work is a
FRAUD based on changing the defintion of core terms of art.'

If a system is missing the ability to do something considered important
for a system, what is dishonest about saying that such a system is
incomplete.

Do you think it isn't important that systems can prove what it true in themselves?

I guess by that same logic, the inability for a given statement to
possible be true whold make the decleration of it as a false statement dishonest.

All you are doing is proving you don't understand how logic works.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/15/25 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the
problem specification requires an integer
and this integer is not allowed to be
construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets the specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all X and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>> this definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say. >>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a >>>>>>>>>> concept taught to and understood by high school students more >>>>>>>>>> that 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction >>>>>>>>> that our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below >>>>>>>>>> requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then >>>>>>>> find the above question can't be answered, therefore the
assumption that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a
BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM

BOGUS FORM
*This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input*
What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return
for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that
reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y.

Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time is
it?"

Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.

It is the title of the post.

Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return
are the same in that both Boolean values are incorrect.

When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong
answer to a Boolean question the question itself
is incorrect and must be rejected as erroneous.

Calling any such question or decision problem
instance any kind of undecidable is flat out dishonest.

The kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
prevents a True(X) predicate that could otherwise
eviscerate Nazi lies the moment that are spoken.

But the ACTUAL question of the problem has a correct answer, just not
the one that the decider gives, so it is just incorrect.

The inability to do the logically impossible is dishonestly
referred to as undecidability.

Nope, becuase it *IS* possible to do in some systems, so it becomes a classification line between the systems which are complete, and which
have undecidable problems.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:32:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D and input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D can actually does the opposite of whatever value that H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns, then we have boxed ourselves in to a problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value. >>>>>>>>>>>>

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such >>>>>>>>>>>> that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly for >>>>>>>>>>>> all X and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of the >>>>>>>>>>> counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies this >>>>>>>>>> definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say. >>>>>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a >>>>>>>> concept taught to and understood by high school students more
that 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question: What
time is it (yes or no)?
Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction that >>>>>>> our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction >>>>>>>>> proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below
requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then
find the above question can't be answered, therefore the assumption >>>>>> that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM >>>>> BOGUS FORM *This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input*
What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return for input D
that does the opposite of whatever value that H returns? (answer
required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that
reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y.

Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time is
it?"

Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.

It is the title of the post.
Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return are the same
in that both Boolean values are incorrect.
When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong answer to a Boolean
question the question itself is incorrect and must be rejected as
erroneous.

"Does it halt?" is however a very sensible question. (Of course it
presupposes the existence of a decider.)

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/15/2025 5:52 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/15/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all X and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, >>>>>>>>>>>> a concept taught to and understood by high school students >>>>>>>>>>>> more that 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question: >>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> that our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a
self-contradiction proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below >>>>>>>>>>>> requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We >>>>>>>>>> then find the above question can't be answered, therefore the >>>>>>>>>> assumption that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID >>>>>>>>> FORM
BOGUS FORM *This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example >>>>>>>>> input* What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return >>>>>>>>> for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that H
returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that >>>>>>>> reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y.

Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time >>>>>>> is it?"

Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.

It is the title of the post.

Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return are the
same in that both Boolean values are incorrect.
When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong answer to a Boolean
question the question itself is incorrect and must be rejected as
erroneous.
Calling any such question or decision problem instance any kind of
undecidable is flat out dishonest.
The kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak prevents a
True(X) predicate that could otherwise eviscerate Nazi lies the
moment that are spoken.

But the ACTUAL question of the problem has a correct answer, just not
the one that the decider gives, so it is just incorrect.

The inability to do the logically impossible is dishonestly referred
to as undecidability.

If your whole argument boils down to "it must be wrong because I don't
like the name", you have less than no argument.

We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except
for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:56:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/16/2025 2:18 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 12:36 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 1:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 10:51 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 10:32 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 7:06 AM, joes wrote:

"Does it halt?" is however a very sensible question. (Of course >>>>>>>>>> it presupposes the existence of a decider.)

*This is the details of the architecture of my system*

<Accurate Paraphrase>
</Accurate Paraphrase>

Nope:

Every rebuttal requires disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 >>>>>>> language. Every since I specified that a correct emulation is
defined by the semantics of the x86 language people changed the
subject as their rebuttal.

The semantics of the x86 language

Specifies exactly what DD correctly emulated by HHH means.
The first four lines of DD continue to be repeated every time that
HHH emulates itself emulating DD.

It also specifies what DD directly executed means, and that's the
behavior we're interested in.

Only if you toss out the notion of a UTM as BOGUS.

HHH isn't a UTM, so irrelevant

HHH is isomorphic to a UTM and my same reasoning applies to the Linz
proof where H really is a UTM.

UTMs don't abort.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/16/25 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 7:06 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:32:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D and input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D can actually does the opposite of whatever value that H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns, then we have boxed ourselves in to a problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all X and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies this >>>>>>>>>>>> definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say. >>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a >>>>>>>>>> concept taught to and understood by high school students more >>>>>>>>>> that 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question: What >>>>>>>>> time is it (yes or no)?
Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction that >>>>>>>>> our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below >>>>>>>>>> requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then >>>>>>>> find the above question can't be answered, therefore the assumption >>>>>>>> that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM >>>>>>> BOGUS FORM *This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input* >>>>>>> What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return for input D >>>>>>> that does the opposite of whatever value that H returns? (answer >>>>>>> required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that
reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y.

Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time is
it?"

Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.

It is the title of the post.
Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return are the same
in that both Boolean values are incorrect.
When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong answer to a Boolean
question the question itself is incorrect and must be rejected as
erroneous.

"Does it halt?" is however a very sensible question. (Of course it
presupposes the existence of a decider.)

*This is the details of the architecture of my system*

<Accurate Paraphrase>
If emulating termination analyzer H emulates its input
finite string D of x86 machine language instructions
according to the semantics of the x86 programming language
until H correctly determines that this emulated D cannot
possibly reach its own "ret" instruction in any finite
number of correctly emulated steps then

H can abort its emulation of input D and correctly report
that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Accurate Paraphrase>

SInce your "Accurate Paraphrase" isn't that, as it make catergory
errors, your conclusion is just incorrect.

The problem is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for your H to determine that the
correct emulation of D cannot possibly reach its own return instruction,
since it has been shown that it will, just no within the PARTIAL
emulation done by H.

It doesn't matter that H aborts its emulation, and thus admit its work
doesn't full conform to the x86 programming language (unless of course,
it emulated a HCF instruction, that is the Halt and Catch Fire op code)
as the x86 programming language says that every instruction *WILL* be
followed by the appropriate instruction as defined by the language.

Since the correct emulation of ANY D that calls an H that aborts and
returns 0, is to halt, it is impossible for that H to have correctly
determined that it didn't.

Your argument is based on looking at a DIFFERENT D, that calls a DIFFENT
H, and thus is based on a LIE. Either your D isn't a program that
includes all its code, and thus your whole problem is a category error,
or you are lying about what code H is seeing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Sun, 16 Mar 2025 19:18:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/16/2025 3:27 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:56:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/16/2025 2:18 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 12:36 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 1:13 PM, olcott wrote:

Specifies exactly what DD correctly emulated by HHH means.
The first four lines of DD continue to be repeated every time that >>>>>>> HHH emulates itself emulating DD.

It also specifies what DD directly executed means, and that's the
behavior we're interested in.

Only if you toss out the notion of a UTM as BOGUS.

HHH isn't a UTM, so irrelevant

HHH is isomorphic to a UTM and my same reasoning applies to the Linz
proof where H really is a UTM.

UTMs don't abort.

Simulators and emulators also don't abort, yet simulating / emulating termination analyzers can be based on them.

And those are not isomorphic to UTMs.

Does THE INPUT TO HHH specify a C function that halts?

The input is DDD.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/16/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 3:27 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:56:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/16/2025 2:18 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 12:36 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 1:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 10:51 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 10:32 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/16/2025 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 7:06 AM, joes wrote:

"Does it halt?" is however a very sensible question. (Of course >>>>>>>>>>>> it presupposes the existence of a decider.)

*This is the details of the architecture of my system*

<Accurate Paraphrase>
</Accurate Paraphrase>

Nope:

Every rebuttal requires disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 >>>>>>>>> language. Every since I specified that a correct emulation is >>>>>>>>> defined by the semantics of the x86 language people changed the >>>>>>>>> subject as their rebuttal.

The semantics of the x86 language

Specifies exactly what DD correctly emulated by HHH means.
The first four lines of DD continue to be repeated every time that >>>>>>> HHH emulates itself emulating DD.

It also specifies what DD directly executed means, and that's the
behavior we're interested in.

Only if you toss out the notion of a UTM as BOGUS.

HHH isn't a UTM, so irrelevant

HHH is isomorphic to a UTM and my same reasoning applies to the Linz
proof where H really is a UTM.

UTMs don't abort.

Simulators and emulators also don't abort, yet simulating
/ emulating termination analyzers can be based on them.

Does THE INPUT TO HHH specify a C function that halts?

But only PROGRAMS have halting behavior, so you are starting with a
category error.

And, if the simulating / emulating termination analyzer does abort, its
partial simulation/emulation doesn't define the answer, but only the
results of giving that same input, which include ALL its code, and thus
the code of the decider it is calling, so that doesn't change when we
give the input to the true emulator, and since when H does abort and
return 0, the correct emulation of that same input halts, H is just
wrong, and you lies to try to say it is right are just your FRAUD.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/03/2025 02:52, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

Does THE INPUT TO HHH specify a C function that halts?

But only PROGRAMS have halting behavior, so you are starting with
a category error.

I hate to take issue with you because you are so clearly on the
side of truth, justice and the Turing way, but I can't let the
above go unchallenged.

C is Turing-complete. Anything a Turing machine program can do
can therefore be expressed in C, and it is perfectly reasonable
to talk about the behaviour of C functions:

void ihalt(void)
{
return;
}

void idont(void)
{
for(;;);
return;
}

The behaviour of this code could in principle be understood by a
program that reads the source code and works out what it's
supposed to be doing. (We call such programs 'compilers'.)

Compilers are not deciders, of course, but it would not be beyond
the wit of some compilers to report "ihalt function returns
without doing anything" or "idont function has unreachable code
'return'", and it would certainly be possible in C to write a
decider for C code. It could not be 100% accurate because Turing,
but a lower target could certainly be met.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/15/2025 5:52 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/15/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/25 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 8:08 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all X and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a concept taught to and understood by high school students >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more that 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question: >>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>> that our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a
self-contradiction proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We >>>>>>>>>>>> then find the above question can't be answered, therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>> assumption that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>

In each of the questions there is a BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID >>>>>>>>>>> FORM
BOGUS FORM *This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example >>>>>>>>>>> input* What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return >>>>>>>>>>> for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that H >>>>>>>>>>> returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

By saying "halt decider H" you're assuming that an H exist that >>>>>>>>>> reports if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y. >>>>>>>>>>

Likewise when we assume a True(X) predicate where X = "What time >>>>>>>>> is it?"

Invalid change of subject.  This will be taken as agreement.

It is the title of the post.

Determining the Boolean value of "What time it is?"
and determining the correct Boolean value for H to return are the >>>>>>> same in that both Boolean values are incorrect.
When-so-ever both Boolean values are the wrong answer to a Boolean >>>>>>> question the question itself is incorrect and must be rejected as >>>>>>> erroneous.
Calling any such question or decision problem instance any kind of >>>>>>> undecidable is flat out dishonest.
The kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak prevents a
True(X) predicate that could otherwise eviscerate Nazi lies the
moment that are spoken.

But the ACTUAL question of the problem has a correct answer, just not >>>>>> the one that the decider gives, so it is just incorrect.

The inability to do the logically impossible is dishonestly referred >>>>> to as undecidability.

If your whole argument boils down to "it must be wrong because I don't >>>> like the name", you have less than no argument.

We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except
for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.

He said that this is impossible and no
counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

In addition saying so he proved so.

If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either
Tarski's proof be erroneous or the "knnowledge that there is a counter
example be false; but there is the third possibility that logic as we
know be incorrect. However, as there is no known counter example.

Whether you are wrong is not something anyone (other than you) should
care. It is sufficient to know that you can't be trusted.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/03/2025 09:55, Mikko wrote:

Whether you are wrong is not something anyone (other than you)
should
care. It is sufficient to know that you can't be trusted.

I trust him.

Unlike the Halting Problem, he is turning out to be completely
decidable.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/03/2025 11:26, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/17/25 3:27 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 17/03/2025 02:52, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

Does THE INPUT TO HHH specify a C function that halts?

But only PROGRAMS have halting behavior, so you are starting
with a category error.

I hate to take issue with you because you are so clearly on the
side of truth, justice and the Turing way, but I can't let the
above go unchallenged.

C is Turing-complete. Anything a Turing machine program can do
can therefore be expressed in C, and it is perfectly reasonable
to talk about the behaviour of C functions:

void ihalt(void)
{
   return;
}

void idont(void)
{
   for(;;);
   return;
}

The behaviour of this code could in principle be understood by
a program that reads the source code and works out what it's
supposed to be doing. (We call such programs 'compilers'.)

Compilers are not deciders, of course, but it would not be
beyond the wit of some compilers to report "ihalt function
returns without doing anything" or "idont function has
unreachable code 'return'", and it would certainly be possible
in C to write a decider for C code. It could not be 100%
accurate because Turing, but a lower target could certainly be
met.

Right, but even the C language says that a system needs to at
least issue a diagnostic, and establishes NO definition of
behavior, if the C function D calls another C function H, but no
definition of H has been provided.

Yes, of course. Without the whole program (however expressed),
the decider cannot decide.

Indeed, the absence of the program in its entirety forces the
decider to admit that it cannot decide, so QED.

Olcott's problem is that he wants to provide it as a "variable"
to D, without admitting that he is doing that, and thus H is
actually part of the "input" to the function. This makes is D not
actually a correct program even by the definition of the C language.

I think we both know that he's not listening.

Reading? Possibly. But listening? Clearly not.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/17/25 3:27 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 17/03/2025 02:52, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

Does THE INPUT TO HHH specify a C function that halts?

But only PROGRAMS have halting behavior, so you are starting with a
category error.

I hate to take issue with you because you are so clearly on the side of truth, justice and the Turing way, but I can't let the above go
unchallenged.

C is Turing-complete. Anything a Turing machine program can do can
therefore be expressed in C, and it is perfectly reasonable to talk
about the behaviour of C functions:

void ihalt(void)
{
  return;
}

void idont(void)
{
  for(;;);
  return;
}

The behaviour of this code could in principle be understood by a program
that reads the source code and works out what it's supposed to be doing.
(We call such programs 'compilers'.)

Compilers are not deciders, of course, but it would not be beyond the
wit of some compilers to report "ihalt function returns without doing anything" or "idont function has unreachable code 'return'", and it
would certainly be possible in C to write a decider for C code. It could
not be 100% accurate because Turing, but a lower target could certainly
be met.

Right, but even the C language says that a system needs to at least
issue a diagnostic, and establishes NO definition of behavior, if the C function D calls another C function H, but no definition of H has been provided.

Olcott's problem is that he wants to provide it as a "variable" to D,
without admitting that he is doing that, and thus H is actually part of
the "input" to the function. This makes is D not actually a correct
program even by the definition of the C language.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/17/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except >>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.

He said that this is impossible and no
counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

In addition saying so he proved so.

If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either
Tarski's proof be erroneous

There is no counter-example in the set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
True(X) does not work correctly...

Sure there is, at least if you consider Human General Knowledge to
provide the properties of the Natural Numbers.

Tarski shows how to build such a statement given the properties of the
Natural Numbers, you just skip that part of the proof, as you can't
understand it.

When True(X) only returns TRUE for contiguous sequences
of truth preserving operations on the basis of basic
facts expressed in formalized natural language then
True(X) consistently works correctly for the entire
set of general human knowledge that can be expressed
using language.

And thus gets Tarski's x wrong, which was an expression derivable from
that human knowledge.

Try and find such a counter-example in the set of
human general knowledge.

Tarski's x, not the metalanguage simplification, but the original x in
the language.

That election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election can be proved baseless on the
basis of the set of human knowledge that can be expressed
using language.

Nope. Your just don't understand the nature of emperical knowledge.

You can not actually logically PROVE that sufficient (undetected) fraud couldn't have happened beyond all possibility. We can show that to do so
would have required an unbelivable process to implement, and thus we say
it "couldn't happen", but that is only an expression that the probablity
is so remote we can't imagine it happening.

A True(X) predicate is important to prevent Nazis from
taking over government using Nazi propaganda.

But it actually doesn't help, and the fact that your argument for it
just uses those same techniques just make things worse.

Sorry, you sold your self to the devil and joined his forces in your
attempt to fight against him, and just lost yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except >>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.

He said that this is impossible and no
counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

In addition saying so he proved so.

If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either
Tarski's proof be erroneous

There is no counter-example in the set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
True(X) does not work correctly...

The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a definition
and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or uncomputable predicates there may be more possibilities.

Tarski proved that no expressible predicate is the truth predicate.

When True(X) only returns TRUE for contiguous sequences
of truth preserving operations on the basis of basic
facts expressed in formalized natural language then
True(X) consistently works correctly for the entire
set of general human knowledge that can be expressed
using language.

Try and find such a counter-example in the set of
human general knowledge.

There is no expressible or computable predicate that tells wheter
a sentence of the first order group theory is a theory is a theorem
of the theory.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 3/18/25 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds
except
for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.

He said that this is impossible and no
counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

In addition saying so he proved so.

If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either
Tarski's proof be erroneous

There is no counter-example in the set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
True(X) does not work correctly...

The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a
definition
and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or
uncomputable
predicates there may be more possibilities.

When I say "expressed using language" I am referring
to elements of the set of empirical knowledge such
as the actual smell of a rose.

"expressed using language" ends the long standing
debate over whether or not analytical truth exists.

What "debate"?

Tarski proved that no expressible predicate is the truth predicate.

That is stupid and denies this:
Boolean True("cats are animals") where every unique sense
meaning of the language has its own GUID.

How does that deny that?

He doesn't say you can't create a predicate that gives the answer for a
lot, or even for most, statements.

It just can't give the correct answer for ALL.

You are just showing your ignorance of the foundations of logic.

When True(X) only returns TRUE for contiguous sequences
of truth preserving operations on the basis of basic
facts expressed in formalized natural language then
True(X) consistently works correctly for the entire
set of general human knowledge that can be expressed
using language.

Try and find such a counter-example in the set of
human general knowledge.

There is no expressible or computable predicate that tells wheter
a sentence of the first order group theory is a theory is a theorem
of the theory.

If that is true then its design violates my design principles.
A finite set of axioms and the application of ONLY truth preserving operations to elements of this set of axioms. (A & ~A) ⊨ FALSE

Or to be more correct, YOU design principles are not compatible with the
ones in his theory.

Part of your problem is you just made a statement that doesn't have
meaning "(A & ~A) ⊨ FALSE", since the resultant of the ⊨ operator is supposed to be a logical statement, which is implicated by the logical statements before it.

Sorry, you are just showing you don't actually understand what you are
doing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-18 13:59:21 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except >>>>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.

He said that this is impossible and no
counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

In addition saying so he proved so.

If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either
Tarski's proof be erroneous

There is no counter-example in the set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
True(X) does not work correctly...

The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a definition >> and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or uncomputable >> predicates there may be more possibilities.

When I say "expressed using language" I am referring
to elements of the set of empirical knowledge such
as the actual smell of a rose.

I.e., not talking about about anything related to Tarski or Tarski's work
but merely using his name in order to deceive.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)