XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/13/2025 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 8/13/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >> On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>> On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> How many tests that are black in color are entirely   
   >>>>> white in color and the answer must be a positive   
   >>>>> integer and must come with proof that it is correct.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely white   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What time is it (yes or no) ?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?   
   >>>>> The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes and by saying that you have proven that you   
   >>> understand the Liar Paradox much better than every   
   >>> expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.   
   >>> The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker   
   >>> maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not   
   >>> have a truth value.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> They all understand that.   
   >>   
   >> What you don't understand is that if you assume that a truth predicate   
   >> exists, then by performing a set series of truth preserving operations   
   >> we reach the conclusion that the liar paradox does have a truth value.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I have the actual Tarski proof and it does not go   
   > that way at all.   
   >   
   > https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf   
      
   That's exactly how it goes.  You just don't understand it, just like you   
   don't understand the halting problem proof.   
      
   >   
   >> Therefore no truth predicate exists.   
   >>   
   >> Once again, you're proving you don't understand proof by contradiction.   
   >>   
   >   
   > When the halting problem shows that there is an   
   > input that does the opposite of whatever the halt   
   > decider decides   
      
   So you start with the assumption that a halt decider exists, i.e. you   
   have an H that meets these requirements:   
      
      
   Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X   
   described as  with input Y:   
      
   A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the   
   following mapping:   
      
   (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly   
   (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly   
      
      
   > then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists   
      
   And it does via a series of truth preserving operations starting from   
   the above assumption   
      
   > it would prove by contradiction that no universal   
   > halt decider exists.   
   >   
      
   Which is exactly what it does.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)