On 12/27/23 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/26/2023 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.
Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.
As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Because what I said proves itself true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words every rebuttal is necessarily incoherent.
NO, what you said proves that your "logic system" doesn't understand
what "self-contradiction" or what a "Program" is.
Remember, to even ask the question, the PROGRAM D, must be defined,
which means we have an actual definite set of "instructions" that it
will perform on an input.
By the form of the proof, that means that the decider at is being
refuted mst have been defined, and it has a definite set of instructions
too.
Thus, we CAN ask, what does the program D, with input D do, as that
behavior was FIXED when we definie it, as it has a definite answer.
It also says that the answer that THAT program H will give, has been
fixed, as that program H when given this input D with input D, will
ALWAYS give what ever answer that sequence of instructions will give.
Thus, your claim of "self-contradictory" means that self-contradictory
includes case that actually HAVE an actual correct answer.
When you talk about "Which every answer H will give" shows you don't
understand what a program gives, as a program, once defined, will always
give the same answer to the same question, so it CAN'T give "Either
Answer", but only one. The design criteria allowed it to give either
answer, but once implemented, the answer wasw fixed.
If you back up to the reimplementation stage, and come up with a
DIFFERENT program (even in almost identical), that will generate a
DIFFERENT D if you want it to refer to this new H, as D includes a
complete copy of the decider it is refuting, as you can no longer treat
the new question as the same as the original one, so you don't actually
get a "contradiction"
Your H1 program, is a DIFFERENT program, even if most of the code is
identical, because its recursion test checks for a DIFFERENT value then
the copy of your program H used (and the copy of that H that D uses), so
You also prove that you don't understand Linguistics, as you don't
understand WHERE the Strawman Question you use gets its varying context.
THis shows that you are incapable of being able to attempt your goal of
trying to implement "Natural Lanuguage" in logic, as you don't
understand how Natural Language works.
Yes, you have shown your source code, and it proves your arguement to be invalid.
D(D) Halts, and H(D,D) says it will be non-halting, thus H is just WRONG.
It does NOTHING to establish your varying context, becausse H1 is NOT H,
and thus the fact that H1 gets the right answer, doesn't prove anything,
except maybe that H's simulation couldn't have been "correct" by the
actual meaning of the word in the field.
You are just proving that you are the incompentent ignorant pathological
lying idiot.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)