XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/22/2025 12:31 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-09-22, dart200  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> still a fucking /decision paradox/ that involves an inability to pin   
   >> down the correct halting semantics of some (program, input) tuple in   
   >> the diagonal.   
   >   
   > The only thing that is not able pin down the semantics is that specific   
   > decider in the specific diagonal case, not us who are going through the   
   > steps of the proof. We can see what the correct answer is for the   
   > trivial examples we trace.   
   > the correct answer is (i.e. pin down the halting semantics).   
   >   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem   
   >>   
   >> look at e(), it's defined, like any decision paradox, to do the   
   >> opposite of f(i,i)   
   >>   
   >> *all halting undecidability proofs involve a decision paradox*   
   >   
   > Sure; it's just not a logical paradox.   
   >   
      
   Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the   
   wrong answer is a logical paradox or more apply   
   my own 2015 innovation: An incorrect question.   
      
   When the full meaning of the question that includes   
   the context of who is being asked then the halting   
   problem proof is an incorrect question AKA logic paradox.   
      
   People try to get away with saying that the halting   
   problem proof is no a paradox because ever TM either   
   halts or fails to halt.   
      
   That is because they fail to understand that the   
   linguistic context of who is asked is a key aspect   
   of the complete meaning of the question.   
      
   Beyond this insight is the fact that the actual   
   diagonal case has never actually existed.   
      
   There has never been any actual input that can   
   possibly do the opposite of whatever its decider   
   decides.   
      
   This has always been the calling function such as   
   (a) my DD or (b) Professor Sipser's D or (c) the   
   machine that the decider itself is embedded within   
   such as the Linz proof.   
      
   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Te   
   mination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D   
      
      
   https://www.liarparadox.org/Sipser_165_167.pdf   
      
   https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)