How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
What correct value can a halt decider return on an input
that does the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides?
The correct answer is that no such *INPUT* can possibly exist.
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
What correct value can a halt decider return on an input
that does the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides?
The correct answer is that no such *INPUT* can possibly exist.
On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely white
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value
What correct value can a halt decider return on an input
that does the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides?
Error: Assumes that a halt decider exists
The correct answer is that no such *INPUT* can possibly exist.
Conclusion: When you assume something and encounter a contradiction,
that proves the assumption false.
All you're doing is showing
that you don't understand proof by
contradiction,
a concept taught to and understood by high school--
students more than 50 years your junior.
On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely white
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value
Yes and by saying that you have proven that you
understand the Liar Paradox much better than every
expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.
The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker
maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not
have a truth value.
What correct value can a halt decider return on an input
that does the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides?
Error: Assumes that a halt decider exists
The correct answer is that no such *INPUT* can possibly exist.
Conclusion: When you assume something and encounter a contradiction,
that proves the assumption false.
You must have attention deficit disorder
*No such INPUT can possibly exist*
*No such INPUT can possibly exist*
*No such INPUT can possibly exist*
*No such INPUT can possibly exist*
*No such INPUT can possibly exist*
On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely white
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value
Yes and by saying that you have proven that you
understand the Liar Paradox much better than every
expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.
The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker
maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not
have a truth value.
They all understand that.
What you don't understand is that if you assume that a truth predicate exists, then by performing a set series of truth preserving operations
we reach the conclusion that the liar paradox does have a truth value.
Therefore no truth predicate exists.
Once again, you're proving you don't understand proof by contradiction.
On 8/13/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely white >>>>
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value
Yes and by saying that you have proven that you
understand the Liar Paradox much better than every
expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.
The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker
maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not
have a truth value.
They all understand that.
What you don't understand is that if you assume that a truth predicate
exists, then by performing a set series of truth preserving operations
we reach the conclusion that the liar paradox does have a truth value.
I have the actual Tarski proof and it does not go
that way at all.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
Therefore no truth predicate exists.
Once again, you're proving you don't understand proof by contradiction.
When the halting problem shows that there is an
input that does the opposite of whatever the halt
decider decides
then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists
it would prove by contradiction that no universal
halt decider exists.
On 8/13/2025 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely white >>>>>
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value
Yes and by saying that you have proven that you
understand the Liar Paradox much better than every
expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.
The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker
maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not
have a truth value.
They all understand that.
What you don't understand is that if you assume that a truth
predicate exists, then by performing a set series of truth preserving
operations we reach the conclusion that the liar paradox does have a
truth value.
I have the actual Tarski proof and it does not go
that way at all.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
That's exactly how it goes. You just don't understand it, just like you don't understand the halting problem proof.
Therefore no truth predicate exists.
Once again, you're proving you don't understand proof by contradiction.
When the halting problem shows that there is an
input that does the opposite of whatever the halt
decider decides
So you start with the assumption that a halt decider exists, i.e. you
have an H that meets these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists
On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely
white
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value
Yes and by saying that you have proven that you
understand the Liar Paradox much better than every
expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.
The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker
maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not
have a truth value.
They all understand that.
What you don't understand is that if you assume that a truth
predicate exists, then by performing a set series of truth
preserving operations we reach the conclusion that the liar paradox
does have a truth value.
I have the actual Tarski proof and it does not go
that way at all.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
That's exactly how it goes. You just don't understand it, just like
you don't understand the halting problem proof.
If you totally ignore all the theory / metatheory stuff
it may superficially seem that way.
Therefore no truth predicate exists.
Once again, you're proving you don't understand proof by contradiction. >>>>
When the halting problem shows that there is an
input that does the opposite of whatever the halt
decider decides
So you start with the assumption that a halt decider exists, i.e. you
have an H that meets these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists
And it does via a series of truth preserving operations starting from the above assumption
When the halting problem shows that there is an
input that does the opposite of whatever the halt
decider decides then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists
it would prove by contradiction that no universal
halt decider exists.
When no such *INPUT* actually exists then the
whole proof totally falls completely apart.
On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
How many tests that are black in color are entirely
white in color and the answer must be a positive
integer and must come with proof that it is correct.
Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely
white
What time is it (yes or no) ?
Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?
The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.
Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value
Yes and by saying that you have proven that you
understand the Liar Paradox much better than every
expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.
The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker
maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not
have a truth value.
They all understand that.
What you don't understand is that if you assume that a truth
predicate exists, then by performing a set series of truth
preserving operations we reach the conclusion that the liar paradox
does have a truth value.
I have the actual Tarski proof and it does not go
that way at all.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
That's exactly how it goes. You just don't understand it, just like
you don't understand the halting problem proof.
If you totally ignore all the theory / metatheory stuff
it may superficially seem that way.
Therefore no truth predicate exists.
Once again, you're proving you don't understand proof by contradiction. >>>>
When the halting problem shows that there is an
input that does the opposite of whatever the halt
decider decides
So you start with the assumption that a halt decider exists, i.e. you
have an H that meets these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists
Yet it quit talking about the behavior of the input.
That sneaky bait-and-switch has fooled everyone
for 89 years.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,064 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 148:15:02 |
| Calls: | 13,691 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,936 |
| D/L today: |
33 files (6,120K bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,410,932 |