On 4/21/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford, 2018
Objective and Subjective Specifications
Eric C.R. Hehner
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Is the perfect example of isomorphism to the halting problem's
pathological input. The halting problem input D derives a self-
contradictory question for H the same way that Carol's question
is self-contradictory for Carol.

No it isn't, as Carol is a voltional being while a decider is
deterministic.

How long are you going to pretend that you don't
know what isomorphisms are?

When are you going to stop[ abusing the term.

To be an ISO-MORPHISM, they need to be "of the same shape".

The to things aren't of the same shape, as they aren't even of the same
type.

Thus, your comparison is just an ACTUAL type error, verse you made-up
type of type error.

Thus, the decider has effectively already made its decision on the
input before the input is actually made, and thus the input can use
that answer to thwart it.

This just shows a category error in your logic. You don't seem to
understand the deterministic behavior of programs, and the fact that
all their behavior is created as soon as the program is created, even
if they are never actually run or simulated. We just don't know what
that behavior is.

This goes back to another of your confusions, about the difference
between Truth (which just is or isn't) and Knowledge, which might not
be yet.

Credit to Richard Damon for finding the loophole in the original
question.

Professor Eric Hehner PhD put the finishing touches on an
earlier idea in serial collaboration with  Daryl McCullough.
I quoted Daryl's work many many times without attribution
before I finally found this original post:

    You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
    yes/no answer to the following question:

    Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

    Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question. >>>
    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/4kIXI1kxmsI/m/hRroMoQZx2IJ >>>

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

On 4/21/25 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford, 2018
Objective and Subjective Specifications
Eric C.R. Hehner
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Is the perfect example of isomorphism to the halting problem's
pathological input. The halting problem input D derives a self-
contradictory question for H the same way that Carol's question
is self-contradictory for Carol.

No it isn't, as Carol is a voltional being while a decider is
deterministic.

How long are you going to pretend that you don't
know what isomorphisms are?

When are you going to stop[ abusing the term.

To be an ISO-MORPHISM, they need to be "of the same shape".

The to things aren't of the same shape, as they aren't even of the
same type.

Thus, your comparison is just an ACTUAL type error, verse you made-up
type of type error.

Bijective mapping.

So, what BIjection are you talking about?

Carol, as she sits there can give two answers, Yes, or No.

Your HHH as it sits in Halt7.c can only give ONE answer, the one it is programmed to give, and that is the wrong one, NO.

If you change H to not abort, it is now a DIFFERENT decider, with a
DIFFERENT input PROGRAM (since it includes by reference the decider) and
this new decider will just fail to ever answer, so it didn't give the
correct answer.

If you change H to still abort, but illogically answer 1, then again we
have a different PROGRAM, and a DIFFERENT input, and this program still
can give only one answer, the one that its programming dictates, and
that is Yes, and for this different input, the correct answer will be No,

Thus showing that the fact that Carol is Volitional, and thus a
statement about what she will do is undetermined make it not isomorphic
to a question about a decider which is deterministic, and an input that
is based on it. This doesn't make the question incorrect, just that the
decider will be wrong, as there still is a correct answer to the
OBJECTIVE question, which thd problem uses, of what do the program the
input represents do.

Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance of what you are talking
about, that you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.

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

On 4/22/25 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/22/2025 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford, 2018
Objective and Subjective Specifications
Eric C.R. Hehner
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Is the perfect example of isomorphism to the halting problem's
pathological input. The halting problem input D derives a self-
contradictory question for H the same way that Carol's question
is self-contradictory for Carol.

No it isn't, as Carol is a voltional being while a decider is
deterministic.

How long are you going to pretend that you don't
know what isomorphisms are?

When are you going to stop[ abusing the term.

To be an ISO-MORPHISM, they need to be "of the same shape".


The to things aren't of the same shape, as they aren't even of the
same type.

Thus, your comparison is just an ACTUAL type error, verse you made-
up type of type error.

Bijective mapping.

So, what BIjection are you talking about?

Carol, as she sits there can give two answers, Yes, or No.

and both of them are the wrong answer.

Right, because the question is improper to be given to a willful being.

When DD is able to actually do the opposite of
whatever value that HHH reports (it can't possibly
do this) then HHH is being asked a question where
both yes and no are the wrong answer.

Sure DD can do the opposite of what HHH says it will do.

You just don't understand that partial simulation don't define behavior.

And both yes and not are NOT the wrong answer when asked of a particular
HHH, only the one that that HHH gives is wrong, the other one is right,

You just are too stupid to understand that programs are not willful, but deterministic because you just don't know what the words mean.

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

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:18:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/22/2025 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford, 2018 Objective and Subjective >>>>>>> Specifications Eric C.R. Hehner Department of Computer Science,
University of Toronto

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Is the perfect example of isomorphism to the halting problem's
pathological input. The halting problem input D derives a self-
contradictory question for H the same way that Carol's question is >>>>>>> self-contradictory for Carol.

No it isn't, as Carol is a voltional being while a decider is
deterministic.

How long are you going to pretend that you don't know what
isomorphisms are?

When are you going to stop[ abusing the term.
To be an ISO-MORPHISM, they need to be "of the same shape".
The to things aren't of the same shape, as they aren't even of the
same type.
Thus, your comparison is just an ACTUAL type error, verse you made-up
type of type error.

Bijective mapping.

So, what BIjection are you talking about?
Carol, as she sits there can give two answers, Yes, or No.

and both of them are the wrong answer.

Only when Carol gives it. The correct answer is the opposite.

When DD is able to actually do the opposite of whatever value that HHH reports (it can't possibly do this) then HHH is being asked a question
where both yes and no are the wrong answer.

DD can most definitely do the opposite. Why shouldn't it?
Like Carol, HHH is incapable of answering correctly.

--
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 Wed, 23 Apr 2025 07:10:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/23/2025 6:30 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:18:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:

and both of them are the wrong answer.

Only when Carol gives it. The correct answer is the opposite.

Even a moron knows that self-contradictory questions have no correct
answer.

It's only contradictory when posed to HHH. HHH1 simulates DD halting
and reports as much. DD halts precisely because HHH returns "non-
halting".

When DD is able to actually do the opposite of whatever value that HHH
reports (it can't possibly do this) then HHH is being asked a question
where both yes and no are the wrong answer.

DD can most definitely do the opposite. Why shouldn't it?

Because doing the opposite is unreachable code.

No, only if HHH doesn't return, in which case it is not a decider.

Like Carol, HHH is incapable of answering correctly.

--
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 4/23/25 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/23/2025 6:30 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:18:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/22/2025 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2025 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/25 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford, 2018 Objective and Subjective >>>>>>>>> Specifications Eric C.R. Hehner Department of Computer Science, >>>>>>>>> University of Toronto

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? >>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Is the perfect example of isomorphism to the halting problem's >>>>>>>>> pathological input. The halting problem input D derives a self- >>>>>>>>> contradictory question for H the same way that Carol's question is >>>>>>>>> self-contradictory for Carol.

No it isn't, as Carol is a voltional being while a decider is
deterministic.

How long are you going to pretend that you don't know what
isomorphisms are?

When are you going to stop[ abusing the term.
To be an ISO-MORPHISM, they need to be "of the same shape".
The to things aren't of the same shape, as they aren't even of the >>>>>> same type.
Thus, your comparison is just an ACTUAL type error, verse you made-up >>>>>> type of type error.

Bijective mapping.

So, what BIjection are you talking about?
Carol, as she sits there can give two answers, Yes, or No.

and both of them are the wrong answer.

Only when Carol gives it. The correct answer is the opposite.

Even a moron knows that self-contradictory questions
have no correct answer.

But the REAL question, does the program described by the input HAS a
correct answer, at least if the Decider and the Input are actually programs.

When DD is able to actually do the opposite of whatever value that HHH
reports (it can't possibly do this) then HHH is being asked a question
where both yes and no are the wrong answer.

DD can most definitely do the opposite. Why shouldn't it?

Because doing the opposite is unreachable code.

No it isn't, since your HHH returns 0.

It is only "unreachable" to the knowledge of HHH, since it stops simulating.

Like Carol, HHH is incapable of answering correctly.

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