• I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004

    From olcott@NoOne@NoWhere.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 18:01:20 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
    was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
    if YouSayItHalts () then
    while true do {}
    else
    return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
    translated to Boolean as the function's input
    parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!



    When a human answers that question both answers are
    the wrong answer. Thus exactly the same as this question:
    Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott

    My 28 year goal has been to make
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
    reliably computable.

    This required establishing a new foundation
    for correct reasoning.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Python@python@cccp.invalid to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Tue Dec 23 02:47:13 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
    was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
    if YouSayItHalts () then
    while true do {}
    else
    return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument does not carry any semantic value.

    func is_even(int n):
    if n % 2 == 0 then
    return false
    else
    return true

    The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing wrong
    with this function /per se/.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:01:21 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution
    was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!



    When a human answers that question both answers are
    the wrong answer. Thus exactly the same as this question:
    Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."



    Question about the future behavior of a volitional being are generally consider not yet truth beares, and thus not a suitable question.

    All you are doing is proving you can't tell the difference between
    volitional beings and machines.

    I have wondered if you somewhere lost most of your volitional will in a
    bad deal, which is why you are so stupid.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:05:07 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution
    was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!



    When a human answers that question both answers are
    the wrong answer. Thus exactly the same as this question:
    Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."



    And of course the correct answer is:

    LoopIfYouSayItHalts(0) will Halt, and
    LoopIfYouSayItHalts(1) will not halt.

    No problem with that.

    Note, The halting problem doesn't say you pass your answer as an
    arguement to the function, but asks about the behavior of the function
    for the provided arguement.

    All you are doing is showing you don't understnad that problem.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 21:11:29 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution >>>>> was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument does
    not carry any semantic value.

    func is_even(int n):
       if n % 2 == 0 then
           return false
       else
           return true

    The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing wrong
    with this function /per se/.


    You erased a key aspect of the context.
    This is my first work on the halting problem
    21 years ago.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:13:19 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution >>>>>> was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's >>>>> not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first >>>>> sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument does
    not carry any semantic value.

    func is_even(int n):
        if n % 2 == 0 then
            return false
        else
            return true

    The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing wrong
    with this function /per se/.


    You erased a key aspect of the context.
    This is my first work on the halting problem
    21 years ago.




    Which shows that you never knew what you doing.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 21:17:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution >>>>> was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!



    When a human answers that question both answers are
    the wrong answer. Thus exactly the same as this question:
    Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."



    And of course the correct answer is:


    Any yes/no question where both yes and no are
    the wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.

    So even 21 years ago I knew that the halting
    problem was fundamentally incorrect.

    Here is the link to that original post. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 21:20:01 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution >>>>>>> was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's >>>>>> not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first >>>>>> sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument
    does not carry any semantic value.

    func is_even(int n):
        if n % 2 == 0 then
            return false
        else
            return true

    The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing
    wrong with this function /per se/.


    You erased a key aspect of the context.
    This is my first work on the halting problem
    21 years ago.




    Which shows that you never knew what you doing.

    You can spout that off as baseless dogmatic
    rhetoric yet cannot show that the essence of
    what I am saying is less than infallibly correct.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:26:59 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a
    solution
    was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. >>>>>>> It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at >>>>>>> first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument
    does not carry any semantic value.

    func is_even(int n):
        if n % 2 == 0 then
            return false
        else
            return true

    The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing
    wrong with this function /per se/.


    You erased a key aspect of the context.
    This is my first work on the halting problem
    21 years ago.




    Which shows that you never knew what you doing.

    You can spout that off as baseless dogmatic
    rhetoric yet cannot show that the essence of
    what I am saying is less than infallibly correct.


    The fact that your arguement isn't based on the form that a decider
    works on it enough to show your ignorance.

    Are you so dumb you can't see that?

    THe DEFINITION of a halt decider is that it is given the description/representaiton of a program and its input, and is to decide
    on what that program will do.

    There is NOTHING problemstic of predecting the behavior of your
    functions for any argument it is given.

    Your argument is that you didn't tell it the right things, but the halt decider doesn't tell the program it is examining anything, the input to
    that program is part of the input to the decider.

    Thus, you are just showing your ignorance.

    THe fact that 20 years later you still don't understand much better
    shows how learning disabled you really are.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:31:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution >>>>>> was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. It's >>>>> not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at first >>>>> sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!



    When a human answers that question both answers are
    the wrong answer. Thus exactly the same as this question:
    Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."



    And of course the correct answer is:


    Any yes/no question where both yes and no are
    the wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.

    But they aren't.

    For every P you look at, one of the answers is correct, it is the
    opposite of the answer the decider it was built on gives.

    You still don't understand that you ask about a specific program, which includes ALL the code it uses, even of the copy of the decider it was
    built on.

    Thus, that specific program ALWAYS behaves the same, and that decider it
    was built on is just wrong.

    When you talk about changing the decider, you get a DIFFERENT input, so
    your arguement is like saying that 1 is the same number as 2.

    WHich just shows how wrong you are.


    So even 21 years ago I knew that the halting
    problem was fundamentally incorrect.

    And you are still wrong as you still don't understand what a program is.


    Here is the link to that original post. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ



    Just proving that dumb can be forever.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 21:31:46 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a >>>>>>>>> solution
    was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem. >>>>>>>> It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at >>>>>>>> first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument
    does not carry any semantic value.

    func is_even(int n):
        if n % 2 == 0 then
            return false
        else
            return true

    The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing
    wrong with this function /per se/.


    You erased a key aspect of the context.
    This is my first work on the halting problem
    21 years ago.




    Which shows that you never knew what you doing.

    You can spout that off as baseless dogmatic
    rhetoric yet cannot show that the essence of
    what I am saying is less than infallibly correct.


    The fact that your arguement isn't based on the form that a decider
    works on it enough to show your ignorance.

    Are you so dumb you can't see that?

    THe DEFINITION of a halt decider is that it is given the description/ representaiton of a program and its input, and is to decide on what that program will do.

    There is NOTHING problemstic of predecting the behavior of your
    functions for any argument it is given.

    Your argument is that you didn't tell it the right things, but the halt decider doesn't tell the program it is examining anything, the input to
    that program is part of the input to the decider.

    Thus, you are just showing your ignorance.

    THe fact that 20 years later you still don't understand much better
    shows how learning disabled you really are.

    No this is just you not bothering to pay 100% complete
    attention to the exact words of the title of this thread.

    Sometimes I must remind LLMs to pay 100% complete
    attention. They immediately take corrective action.
    People never do because they only care about rebuttal
    even if this makes them liars.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 21:41:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
    if YouSayItHalts () then
    while true do {}
    else
    return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
    translated to Boolean as the function's input
    parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    Any yes/no question where both yes and no are
    the wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.

    But they aren't.


    Then answer the above question correctly.
    The only reason that you don't is that you
    know I am correct and you don't give a rat's
    ass for the truth.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:46:10 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :
    On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    PREMISES:
    (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a >>>>>>>>>> solution
    was defined to be impossible.

    No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical
    problem. It's
    not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at >>>>>>>>> first
    sight.

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument >>>>>> does not carry any semantic value.

    func is_even(int n):
        if n % 2 == 0 then
            return false
        else
            return true

    The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing
    wrong with this function /per se/.


    You erased a key aspect of the context.
    This is my first work on the halting problem
    21 years ago.




    Which shows that you never knew what you doing.

    You can spout that off as baseless dogmatic
    rhetoric yet cannot show that the essence of
    what I am saying is less than infallibly correct.


    The fact that your arguement isn't based on the form that a decider
    works on it enough to show your ignorance.

    Are you so dumb you can't see that?

    THe DEFINITION of a halt decider is that it is given the description/
    representaiton of a program and its input, and is to decide on what
    that program will do.

    There is NOTHING problemstic of predecting the behavior of your
    functions for any argument it is given.

    Your argument is that you didn't tell it the right things, but the
    halt decider doesn't tell the program it is examining anything, the
    input to that program is part of the input to the decider.

    Thus, you are just showing your ignorance.

    THe fact that 20 years later you still don't understand much better
    shows how learning disabled you really are.

    No this is just you not bothering to pay 100% complete
    attention to the exact words of the title of this thread.

    Sometimes I must remind LLMs to pay 100% complete
    attention. They immediately take corrective action.
    People never do because they only care about rebuttal
    even if this makes them liars.


    No, I understand what you are saying, but you are just misusing words.

    The fact that you are trusting LLMs just shows how far you have gone
    into your insanity.

    Your problem is you are really mentally deficient in your ability to
    reason, and seem to have lost much of your contact with reality.

    I'm sorry, but you have effectively killed yourself and your ability to rationally think.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:50:03 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
       if YouSayItHalts () then
           while true do {}
        else
           return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
     translated to Boolean as the function's input
     parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    Any yes/no question where both yes and no are
    the wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.

    But they aren't.


    Then answer the above question correctly.
    The only reason that you don't is that you
    know I am correct and you don't give a rat's
    ass for the truth.


    I DID!!!!

    LoopIfYourSayIHalts(false) -> Halts
    LoopIfYouSayIHalts(true) -> Does Not Halt

    Note, the input to the funciton the halt decider is analysing is NOT the prediciton of the decider, but the input given in the question, which is
    to specify the machine and its input.

    All you are doing is showing you are brain dead.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 21:54:35 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
    if YouSayItHalts () then
    while true do {}
    else
    return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
    translated to Boolean as the function's input
    parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    No, I understand what you are saying, but you are just misusing words.

    I say that any yes/no question lacking a
    incorrect yes/no answer is an incorrect
    polar question.

    That is true on the basis of the meaning
    of its words.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 21:56:24 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    Any yes/no question where both yes and no are
    the wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.

    But they aren't.


    Then answer the above question correctly.
    The only reason that you don't is that you
    know I am correct and you don't give a rat's
    ass for the truth.


    I DID!!!!


    YES or NO (you cheated as always)
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 22:58:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
       if YouSayItHalts () then
           while true do {}
        else
           return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
     translated to Boolean as the function's input
     parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    No, I understand what you are saying, but you are just misusing words.

    I say that any yes/no question lacking a
    incorrect yes/no answer is an incorrect
    polar question.

    That is true on the basis of the meaning
    of its words.



    But isn't a problem of the halting problem.

    EVERY correct input, that is the full representation of an actual
    program has a yes or no answer.

    Even other inputs do, as the answer is that they are not representations
    of Halting programs, and thus are to be rejected.

    Part of your problem is you try to look at a category error where the
    input isn't a specific program, but try to encode a set of programs, but
    that is just a category error.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Mon Dec 22 23:06:04 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/25 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    Any yes/no question where both yes and no are
    the wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.

    But they aren't.


    Then answer the above question correctly.
    The only reason that you don't is that you
    know I am correct and you don't give a rat's
    ass for the truth.


    I DID!!!!


    YES or NO (you cheated as always)



    But it isn't a single question you stupid ninny!

    You are just showing you are just a stupid and ignorant pathological
    liar that doesn't know what he is talking about, and just doesn't care.

    Have you stopped watching kiddie porn?

    And that isn't a fallacy of presumed fact, as we know you were reported
    to have done so, and sort of admitted it because you said it was alright
    as you were God.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Tue Dec 23 06:36:27 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/22/2025 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    No, I understand what you are saying, but you are just misusing words.

    I say that any yes/no question lacking a
    incorrect yes/no answer is an incorrect
    polar question.

    That is true on the basis of the meaning
    of its words.



    But isn't a problem of the halting problem.

    EVERY correct input, that is the full representation of an actual
    program has a yes or no answer.


    Every finite string P input to halt decider H
    has a correct yes or no answer regarding the
    behavior that its actual input actually specifies.

    All of these inputs have behavior consistent with
    the behavior of UTM(P) except those inputs that
    cheat and call their own decider H(P).
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Tue Dec 23 10:58:21 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 12/23/25 7:36 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/22/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 12/22/25 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:

    function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
        if YouSayItHalts () then
            while true do {}
         else
            return false;

    Does this program Halt?

    (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
      translated to Boolean as the function's input
      parameter)

    Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!


    No, I understand what you are saying, but you are just misusing words. >>>>
    I say that any yes/no question lacking a
    incorrect yes/no answer is an incorrect
    polar question.

    That is true on the basis of the meaning
    of its words.



    But isn't a problem of the halting problem.

    EVERY correct input, that is the full representation of an actual
    program has a yes or no answer.


    Every finite string P input to halt decider H
    has a correct yes or no answer regarding the
    behavior that its actual input actually specifies.

    Right, and for the specific finite string P which was built based on a specific "halt decider" H, that answer is the opposite of what H(P) says.

    Remember, that P INCLUDES within it, the algorithm of H, and thus is
    different for each H you think up.


    All of these inputs have behavior consistent with
    the behavior of UTM(P) except those inputs that
    cheat and call their own decider H(P).


    Nope, UTM(P) ALWAYS shows the behavior of P when it is run, or it isn't
    a UTM. I guess you don't understand definitions.

    After all, the UTM can't know which "H" the input is supposed to be
    trying to "cheat". Remember, a specific P was built on a specific H.

    You have agreed that the input was correctly decider by a different
    decider, and thus the UTM matched it. The problem is you seem to think
    that the machine can have two different behaviors depending on who is
    deciding it, but it can't. This just shows that you don't understand the basics of the field.

    And, there is nothing "cheating" about calling a halt decider, and P
    doesn't "own" that H.

    Sorry, you are just making up a LIE because you find a definition
    distasteful to your other LIES.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2