1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.ai.philosophy

  • The conventional diagonal argument proves my point

    From olcott@[email protected] to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Sep 16 17:35:43 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    It is conventional[1] common knowledge that for every
    halt decider their is an input that does the opposite
    of whatever this decider reports, thus thwarting this
    decider. My HHH(DD)

    It is also conventional[1] common knowledge that another
    halt decider can correctly decide this same input. My HHH1(DD).

    How can HHH(DD) be undecidable and HHH1(DD) be decidable
    when as Kaz believes DD always specifies the exact same
    behavior?




    [1] This conventional knowledge is mistaken yet that is
    another different point.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Bonita Montero@[email protected] to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Wed Sep 17 06:24:46 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    Am 17.09.2025 um 00:35 schrieb olcott:
    It is conventional[1] common knowledge that for every
    halt decider their is an input that does the opposite
    of whatever this decider reports, thus thwarting this
    decider. My HHH(DD)

    It is also conventional[1] common knowledge that another
    halt decider can correctly decide this same input. My HHH1(DD).

    How can HHH(DD) be undecidable and HHH1(DD) be decidable
    when as Kaz believes DD always specifies the exact same
    behavior?




    [1] This conventional knowledge is mistaken yet that is
    another different point.


    The therapist that matches you has yet to be born.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2