From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 8/26/25 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/26/2025 5:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 26/08/2025 10:51, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-08-24 22:19:44 +0000, olcott said:

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

Everything you have provided after that is repetition of the same
fundamental errors, sometimes differently formulated.

Fascinating to see the kick-off, 68 years after the final whistle, but
somewhat dispiriting to see that the game hasn't changed a jot.

NOBODY can be this stupid.

This reasoning does apply to the Liar Paradox
Is the Liar Paradox true or false? it is not
a truth bearer thus has no truth value.

It also applies to an actual input that can do
the opposite of whatever its decider reports.
Back then I didn't know that no such ACTUAL INPUT
can possibly exist.

Nope, because when the decider is an actual program (as required) so is
the input, and thus it WILL have a correct answer, just not the ONE
answer that the program gives.

You forget that H(D) can only give one answer, as H is a deterministic algorithm being applied to a specific input.

To imagine it doing something different is just to lie.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2025-08-26 16:33:12 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/26/2025 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-08-24 22:19:44 +0000, olcott said:

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

Everything you have provided after that is repetition of the same
fundamental errors, sometimes differently formulated.

That is my first post on the HP back in 2004.
I posted to sci.logic before I knew about
comp.theory. This post was not aware that
there cannot possibly be any actual input
that does the opposite of the value that
its decider returns.

You are right, you introduced that error later.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2