From Newsgroup: comp.theory

olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.15:

On 12/4/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.27:

On 12/3/2025 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.14:

Flibble was the first one to use this term that I am aware of.

It does not matter who first used the term here.
...

Anyway, any claim that a problem contradict something is
a category error because the meanings of "problem" and
"contradict" are not compatible.

When the halting problem contradicts the definition
of a Turing machine decider

A contradiction means that all claims of some set cannot be true. It
is a category error to apply the term "contradiction" to non-claims.
Examples of non-claims are problem and definition. An example of
category error is "the halting problem contradicts the definition of
a Turing machine decider".

The halting problem contradicts the definition
of a Turing machine decider proving that it is
wrong because the definition of a Turing machine
decider is foundational.

That still contains the same category error pointed out in my
prevous comment as quoted above.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/6/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.15:

On 12/4/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.27:

On 12/3/2025 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.14:

Flibble was the first one to use this term that I am aware of.

It does not matter who first used the term here.
...

Anyway, any claim that a problem contradict something is
a category error because the meanings of "problem" and
"contradict" are not compatible.

When the halting problem contradicts the definition
of a Turing machine decider

A contradiction means that all claims of some set cannot be true. It
is a category error to apply the term "contradiction" to non-claims.
Examples of non-claims are problem and definition. An example of
category error is "the halting problem contradicts the definition of
a Turing machine decider".

The halting problem contradicts the definition
of a Turing machine decider proving that it is
wrong because the definition of a Turing machine
decider is foundational.

That still contains the same category error pointed out in my
prevous comment as quoted above.

Try and find an error.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398375553_Halting_Problem_Proof_Counter-Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

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

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/6/25 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.15:

On 12/4/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.27:

On 12/3/2025 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.14:

Flibble was the first one to use this term that I am aware of.

It does not matter who first used the term here.
...

Anyway, any claim that a problem contradict something is
a category error because the meanings of "problem" and
"contradict" are not compatible.

When the halting problem contradicts the definition
of a Turing machine decider

A contradiction means that all claims of some set cannot be true. It
is a category error to apply the term "contradiction" to non-claims.
Examples of non-claims are problem and definition. An example of
category error is "the halting problem contradicts the definition of
a Turing machine decider".

The halting problem contradicts the definition
of a Turing machine decider proving that it is
wrong because the definition of a Turing machine
decider is foundational.

That still contains the same category error pointed out in my
prevous comment as quoted above.

Part of his problem is that his claim of the error in the problem turns
out to be isomorphic with the claim that a Universal Turing Machine
can't exist, and if that is true, then his whole foundation crumbles.

The key is he ways that the input can't mean the behavior of the machine
it describes when actually run, but if you can have UTMs, then there
*IS* a way to make an input that fully describes the full behavior of
the machine when actually run.

If the encoding his machine can't do that, then the error is in the
encoding that his machine takes. You can't prove non-existance by
showing one example doesn't work.

But then, that is the sort of error he always makes, that you can prove
a universal with an example, because he just doesn't understand what the
terms mean.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2