XPost: comp.theory   
   From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as described   
   in the sig.   
      
   On 26/09/2025 21:00, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   > On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:   
   >   
   >> *The conventional halting problem question is this*   
   [snipped]>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*   
   >> What correct halt status value can be returned   
   >> when the input to a halt decider actually does   
   >> the opposite of whatever value is returned?   
   >>   
   >> These above conventional views are proven.   
   >   
   > Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements.   
   > And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own   
   > formulations and then declare them to be conventional.   
      
   I think by "proof question" (s)he means the one that's used within the   
   proof which conventionally is "What correct halt status value can be   
   returned ... ? If true then it's not correct, if false then it's not   
   correct, if something else then it doesn't decide because a decision is   
   true or false. There's no correct halt status value that can be returned   
   therefore there's no single halt decider." You see there the proof has a   
   question, the proof question is as olcott said.   
      
   I think the criticisms levied at olcott can be reflected at the group. I   
   think olcott constructs his/her messages carefully but opaquely through   
   choosing unexpected aspects to mention. It's a raw assertive style   
   perhaps following the advice of many a bad adviser who tells people to   
   be assertive. It doesn't include adjustment of context to place   
   assertions in the A-language or out of it.   
      
   For example "These above conventional views are proven." People assert   
   very strongly and uniformly that the proof question (the question used   
   in the proof) is as he says it is. It is thus proven (in the traditional   
   sense of proving a real thing by testing it in the real world) to be the   
   "proof question".   
      
   Each thing he says looks like it has _an_ interpretation in a normal   
   U-language for the group that is true. I'm not sure if the only   
   alternative interpretations are invalid and thus trigger negative   
   emotions due to the reader not needing to backtrack a parse yet   
   perceiving a meaning that could not have been expressed and should not   
   have been expressed (the former not properly preventing judgement of the   
   latter by a curious quirk of humanity).   
      
   It is worthy of study for the nature of an U-language for logicians and   
   the type of ambiguity resolution failure that it seems to be triggering.   
   It might or might not be a good idea to try to receive such things well   
   personally - perhaps one's humanity would be lost by venturing far from   
   one's interpersonal experiences - it could cause marriage-breaking   
   stuff, for example.   
      
   --   
   Tristan Wibberley   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)