This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
On 3/13/2024 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-12 14:45:51 +0000, olcott said:
This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
The question "Is the specification of halt decider satisfiable?"
is not ill-formed.
Whenever undecidability is anchored epistemological antinomy
that means that the decider is trying to determine whether
a self-contradictory expression is true or false. All of these
cases are ill-formed.
The self-contradictory nature of the halting problem counter-example
input makes this input ill-formed.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof...
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. 15 ...
(Gödel 1931:43-44)
On 3/15/2024 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-13 14:19:22 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/13/2024 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-12 14:45:51 +0000, olcott said:
This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
The question "Is the specification of halt decider satisfiable?"
is not ill-formed.
Whenever undecidability is anchored epistemological antinomy
that means that the decider is trying to determine whether
a self-contradictory expression is true or false. All of these
cases are ill-formed.
The self-contradictory nature of the halting problem counter-example
input makes this input ill-formed.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
own unprovability. 15 ...
(Gödel 1931:43-44)
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
I just showed how and why Gödel' comments are incorrect.
On 3/15/2024 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-13 14:19:22 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/13/2024 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-12 14:45:51 +0000, olcott said:
This is my 2004 work that proposes that the halting problem has
an unsatisfiable specification thus asks an ill-formed question.
The question "Is the specification of halt decider satisfiable?"
is not ill-formed.
Whenever undecidability is anchored epistemological antinomy
that means that the decider is trying to determine whether
a self-contradictory expression is true or false. All of these
cases are ill-formed.
The self-contradictory nature of the halting problem counter-example
input makes this input ill-formed.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability. 15 ...
(Gödel 1931:43-44)
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
I just showed how and why Gödel' comments are incorrect.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 134:30:19 |
| Calls: | 9,690 |
| Files: | 13,728 |
| Messages: | 6,177,822 |