Self Referential Undecidability Construed as Incorrect Questions

[PeteOlcott]

Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to decision problems.

When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly ignored.

When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the full context of who is asked.

This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct accept/reject return value from this decider.

It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.

In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct answer within the full context of the question.

On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote: (USENET sci.lang)
> Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
> self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
> seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
> paradox).
>
> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> yes/no answer to the following question:
>
> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

A PhD computer science professor made these improvements
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Because:
(1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.

(2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.

(3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
lacking a correct yes/no answer.

Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack

This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
that H returns.

When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.

[Skepdick]

Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to decision problems.

When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly ignored.

When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the full context of who is asked.

This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct accept/reject return value from this decider.

It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.

In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct answer within the full context of the question.

On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote: (USENET sci.lang)
> Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
> self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
> seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
> paradox).
>
> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> yes/no answer to the following question:
>
> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

A PhD computer science professor made these improvements
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Because:
(1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.

(2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.

(3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
lacking a correct yes/no answer.

Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack

This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
that H returns.

When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.

Asker: Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
Jack: Yes.
Asker: Jack's answer to the question "Will Jack's answer to this question be no?" was "Yes"
Asker: The answer was not no - therefore the answer is false.

Asker: Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
Jack: No.
Asker: Jack's answer to the question "Will Jack's answer to this question be no?" was "No".
Asker: The answer was "no" therefore the answer is true.

What do you mean by "incorrect"; and why is the question "incorrect"?
What do you mean by "wrong"; and why was either answer "wrong" ?

Your problem is that you haven't mapped Jack's possible responses {Yes, No} to the judgments {True, not True|

[PeteOlcott]

What do you mean by "incorrect"; and why is the question "incorrect"?
What do you mean by "wrong"; and why was either answer "wrong" ?

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Let's ask Jack. If he says “yes”, he's saying that “no” is the correct
answer for him, so “yes” is incorrect.

If he says “no”, he's saying that he cannot correctly answer “no”, which
is his answer. So both answers are incorrect. Jack cannot answer the
question correctly.

[Skepdick]

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

What do you mean by "correctly"?

Please provide the mapping function from Jack's possible answers {Yes, No}, to the {Correct, not Correct}

Let's ask Jack. If he says “yes”, he's saying that “no” is the correct
answer for him, so “yes” is incorrect.

You haven't defined "correct" and "incorrect".

Why is "no" correct?
Why is "yes" incorrect?

If he says “no”, he's saying that he cannot correctly answer “no”, which
is his answer. So both answers are incorrect. Jack cannot answer the
question correctly.

You haven't defined "correct" and "incorrect".

Why are both answers "incorrect"?

[Skepdick]

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Jack can answer "no" to this question.
Jack can answer "yes" to this question.

What would make either answer "correct"?

[PeteOlcott]

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Jack can answer "no" to this question.
Jack can answer "yes" to this question.

What would make either answer "correct"?

It must be over your head. It probably takes an IQ of at least 120
to understand these things.

[Skepdick]

It must be over your head. It probably takes an IQ of at least 120
to understand these things.

Which is precisely why I understand that you are confused.

How low is your IQ that you can't answer a simple question?

[PeteOlcott]

It must be over your head. It probably takes an IQ of at least 120
to understand these things.

Which is precisely why I understand that you are confused.

How low is your IQ that you can't answer a simple question?

I have studied this issue when it was first presented to me in 2004.

The original presenter Daryl did not understand that linguists knows
that the context of who is asked a question is an integral part of the
meaning of this question. Ignorance of linguistics is not any rebuttal.

When it is stipulated as an axiom that any yes/no question lacking
a correct yes/no asnwer is an incorrect question then this is also true:

This is an axiom: (stipulated to be true)
When a yes/no question has no correct yes/no answer from a specific
person then this too is an incorrect question for this person.

[PeteOlcott]

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Jack can answer "no" to this question.
Jack can answer "yes" to this question.

What would make either answer "correct"?

The only possible correct answer is "no" and it must come from
someone other than Jack. Every other answer is self-contradictory.

[Sculptor]

Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does change the meaning of some questions. This same reasoning applies to decision problems.

When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly ignored.

When a yes/no question posed to a person has no correct yes/no answer from this person then this question is construed as incorrect within the full context of who is asked.

This same reasoning applies when the input to a decider has no correct accept/reject return value from this decider.

It does not matter that the question has a correct answer from someone else or the input to the decider can be decided by another decider.

In both cases we have an incorrect question because it has no correct answer within the full context of the question.

On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote: (USENET sci.lang)
> Both Godel's proof and Turing's proof have the flavor of using
> self-reference to force someone to make a mistake. Both cases
> seem a little like the following paradox (call it the "Gotcha"
> paradox).
>
> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> yes/no answer to the following question:
>
> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

A PhD computer science professor made these improvements
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Because:
(1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Jack.

(2) Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked changes the
meaning of this question, thus this context cannot be correctly ignored.

(3) An incorrect yes/no question is defined as any yes/no question
lacking a correct yes/no answer.

Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack

This same reasoning equally applies to a termination analyzer H that
reports on an input D that does the opposite of whatever halt status
that H returns.

When the full context is of who is asked is considered then
Does D halt on its input? is an incorrect question for H.

Have you stopped torturing dogs?

[Sculptor]

Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

Is not even a question that can be directed to Jack.

[PeteOlcott]

Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

Is not even a question that can be directed to Jack.

Sure it is. It would be more commonly phrased as
Will your answer to this question be no?

Yet referring to Jack in the third person when speaking with
Jack is not semantically incorrect, it is merely unconventional.

[Skepdick]

Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Jack can answer "no" to this question.
Jack can answer "yes" to this question.

What would make either answer "correct"?

The only possible correct answer is "no" and it must come from
someone other than Jack. Every other answer is self-contradictory.

I don't care about your proclamations.

Jack can answer "no" to the question. Why is this answer by Jack correct; or incorrect?
Jack can answer "yes" to the question. Why is this answer by Jack correct; or incorrect?
Olcott can answer "yes" to the question. Why is this answer by Olcott correct; or incorrect?
Olcott can answer "no" to the question. Why is this answer by Olcott correct; or incorrect?

[PeteOlcott]

Jack can answer "no" to this question.
Jack can answer "yes" to this question.

What would make either answer "correct"?

The only possible correct answer is "no" and it must come from
someone other than Jack. Every other answer is self-contradictory.

I don't care about your proclamations.

Jack can answer "no" to the question. Why is this answer by Jack correct; or incorrect?
Jack can answer "yes" to the question. Why is this answer by Jack correct; or incorrect?
Olcott can answer "yes" to the question. Why is this answer by Olcott correct; or incorrect?
Olcott can answer "no" to the question. Why is this answer by Olcott correct; or incorrect?

You deceiptfully changed this question:
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Here is the original PhD computer science professors answer:
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Let's ask Jack. If he says “yes”, he's saying that “no” is the correct
answer for him, so “yes” is incorrect.

If he says “no”, he's saying that he cannot correctly answer “no”, which
is his answer. So both answers are incorrect. Jack cannot answer the
question correctly.

[Skepdick]

The only possible correct answer is "no" and it must come from
someone other than Jack. Every other answer is self-contradictory.

I don't care about your proclamations.

Jack can answer "no" to the question. Why is this answer by Jack correct; or incorrect?
Jack can answer "yes" to the question. Why is this answer by Jack correct; or incorrect?
Olcott can answer "yes" to the question. Why is this answer by Olcott correct; or incorrect?
Olcott can answer "no" to the question. Why is this answer by Olcott correct; or incorrect?

You deceiptfully changed this question:
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Here is the original PhD computer science professors answer:
Can Jack correctly answer “no” to this question?

Let's ask Jack. If he says “yes”, he's saying that “no” is the correct
answer for him, so “yes” is incorrect.

If he says “no”, he's saying that he cannot correctly answer “no”, which
is his answer. So both answers are incorrect. Jack cannot answer the
question correctly.

Bullshit.

It is a fact that Jack can answer "no" to the question.
It's also a fact that Jack can answer "yes" to the question.

It is on you to explain why either answer is "correct" or "incorrect".

Surely you know what you mean by "correct" when asking the question ?!?