XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog   
   XPost: comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/10/2026 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/10/26 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/10/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 09/01/2026 17:52, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/9/2026 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 08/01/2026 16:22, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/8/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 07/01/2026 13:54, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/7/2026 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2026 06:44, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> The counter-example input to requires more than   
   >>>>>>>>>> can be derived from finite string transformation   
   >>>>>>>>>> rules applied to this specific input thus the   
   >>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem requires too much.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> In a sense the halting problem asks too much: the problem is   
   >>>>>>>>> proven to   
   >>>>>>>>> be unsolvable. In another sense it asks too little: usually we   
   >>>>>>>>> want to   
   >>>>>>>>> know whether a method halts on every input, not just one.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Although the halting problem is unsolvable, there are partial   
   >>>>>>>>> solutions   
   >>>>>>>>> to the halting problem. In particular, every counter-example to   
   >>>>>>>>> the   
   >>>>>>>>> full solution is correctly solved by some partial deciders.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Depends on whether the word "truth" is interpeted in the standard   
   >>>>>>> sense or in Olcott's sense.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Undecidability is misconception. Self-contradictory   
   >>>>>> expressions are correctly rejected as semantically   
   >>>>>> incoherent thus form no undecidability or incompleteness.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The misconception is yours. No expression in the language of the first   
   >>>>> order group theory is self-contradictory. But the first order goupr   
   >>>>> theory is incomplete: it is impossible to prove that AB = BA is true   
   >>>>> for every A and every B but it is also impossible to prove that AB   
   >>>>> = BA   
   >>>>> is false for some A and some B.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When a required result cannot be derived by applying   
   >>>> finite string transformation rules to actual finite   
   >>>> string inputs, then the required result exceeds the   
   >>>> scope of computation and must be rejected as an   
   >>>> incorrect requirement.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, that does not follow. If a required result cannot be derived by   
   >>> appying a finite string transformation then the it it is uncomputable.   
   >>   
   >> Right. Outside the scope of computation. Requiring anything   
   >> outside the scope of computation is an incorrect requirement.   
   >>   
   >>> Of course, it one can prove that the required result is not computable   
   >>> then that helps to avoid wasting effort to try the impossible. The   
   >>> situation is worse if it is not known that the required result is not   
   >>> computable.   
   >>>   
   >>> That something is not computable does not mean that there is anyting   
   >>> "incorrect" in the requirement.   
   >>   
   >> Yes it certainly does. Requiring the impossible is always an error.   
   >> Requiring an answer to a yes/no question that has no correct yes/no   
   >> answer is an incorrect question that must be rejected.   
   >   
   > But then, insisting that things are possilbe to ask the question is an   
   > error, as you might not be able to know if it is possible when you ask   
   > the question.   
   >   
   > Thus, your logic only allows that asking of questions you already know   
   > that an answer exists.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> In order to claim that a requirement   
   >>> is incorrect one must at least prove that the requirement does not   
   >>> serve its intended purpose.   
   >>   
   >> Requiring the impossible cannot possibly serve any purpose   
   >> except perhaps to exemplify one's own ignorance.   
   >   
   > But asking if it is possible lets you know about the limits of what you   
   > can do.   
   >   
   > Remember, the halting problems as the question about IS IT POSSIBLE, and   
   > that has an answer, it is not possible to to it.   
   >   
      
   Is it possible to correctly answer self-contradictory questions?   
   No not even when they are rearranged into a Halting Problem.   
      
   I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004   
      
   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!   
      
   https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ   
   When you yourself say YES you are wrong   
   When you yourself say NO you are wrong   
      
   Therefore the halting problem counter example input   
   is a yes/no question lacking a correct yes/no answer.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 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
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)