Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal

[PeteOlcott]

If you start with the ordinary meanings of the English words that
would be a good estimate of their meaning. You won't do this
because your only purpose is to Trollishly thwart any honest dialogue.

[Skepdick]

If you start with the ordinary meanings of the English words that
would be a good estimate of their meaning. You won't do this
because your only purpose is to Trollishly thwart any honest dialogue.

And using the good estimate of the English words I answered the question with a "No."

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? No, Carol cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question.

And you don't like it. Why?

[PeteOlcott]

If you start with the ordinary meanings of the English words that
would be a good estimate of their meaning. You won't do this
because your only purpose is to Trollishly thwart any honest dialogue.

And using the good estimate of the English words I answered the question with a "No."

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? No, Carol cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question.

And you don't like it. Why?

Finally an honest reply!

It is not that I don't like it.
It is that Carol's question for Carol is isomorphic to input D that does the
opposite of whatever Boolean value that halt decider H returns.

Carol's question posed to Carol and Input D to H are both examples of
self-contradictory questions thus are incorrect in the same way that
self-contradictory statements are incorrect.

With incorrect questions the blame for not correctly answering them
belongs with the question and not the one answering this question.

[Skepdick]

If you start with the ordinary meanings of the English words that
would be a good estimate of their meaning. You won't do this
because your only purpose is to Trollishly thwart any honest dialogue.

And using the good estimate of the English words I answered the question with a "No."

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question? No, Carol cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question.

And you don't like it. Why?

Finally an honest reply!

It is not that I don't like it.
It is that Carol's question for Carol is isomorphic to input D that does the
opposite of whatever Boolean value that halt decider H returns.

Carol's question posed to Carol and Input D to H are both examples of
self-contradictory questions thus are incorrect in the same way that
self-contradictory statements are incorrect.

With incorrect questions the blame for not correctly answering them
belongs with the question and not the one answering this question.

You appear to be confused.

The question was correctly answered with a "No".

And the justification for the answer was precisely "I (Carol), cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question."

Which is correct.

[PeteOlcott]

The question was correctly answered with a "No".

And the justification for the answer was precisely "I (Carol), cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question."

Which is correct.

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
When anyone besides Carol answers "no" their answer is correct.

From the original paper:

Let's ask Carol. If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no”
is the correct answer for her, so “yes” is incorrect. If she says
“no”, she's saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”, which
is her answer. So both answers are incorrect.

In other words when Carol answers "no" that means that she
is saying that her answer of "no" is incorrect.

If she is right then she just agreed that her current answer
is wrong, otherwise she is wrong.

[Skepdick]

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
When anyone besides Carol answers "no" their answer is correct.

And the justification for the answer was precisely "I (Carol), cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question."

Which is correct.

In other words when Carol answers "no" that means that she
is saying that her answer of "no" is incorrect.

And the justification for the answer was precisely "I (Carol), cannot correctly answer "no" to this [yes/no] question."

It is 100% correct that she cannot answer correctly.

If she is right then she just agreed that her current answer is wrong, otherwise she is wrong.

She is 100% right that her answering "no" is not right.

Carol is way smarter than you and skillfully avoids your lame attempts at contradictory entrapment.

[PeteOlcott]

She is 100% right that her answering "no" is not right.

Carol is way smarter than you and skillfully avoids your lame attempts at contradictory entrapment.

If she is 100% right that answering "no" is not right and she just
answered "no" then she acknowledged that the "no" answer that
she just provided is wrong.

[Skepdick]

If she is 100% right that answering "no" is not right and she just
answered "no" then she acknowledged that the "no" answer that
she just provided is wrong.

Correct! Carol is right that her answering "no" is wrong.

Which sticks you with the recursive self-reference again.

Does Carol being right about being wrong make Carol right; or wrong.
Does Carol being wrong about being right make Carol right; or wrong.

[PeteOlcott]

Correct! Carol is right that her answering "no" is wrong.

Which sticks you with the recursive self-reference again.

Does Carol being right about being wrong make Carol right; or wrong.
Does Carol being wrong about being right make Carol right; or wrong.

When Carol agrees that she is wrong this makes her right thus incorrect that she is wrong.
It is essentially merely a more complex case of the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true" is not true, yet that does not make it true.

[Skepdick]

When Carol agrees that she is wrong this makes her right thus incorrect that she is wrong.
It is essentially merely a more complex case of the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true" is not true, yet that does not make it true.

Who cares if it's true? It's correct, meaningful and coherent.

[PeteOlcott]

When Carol agrees that she is wrong this makes her right thus incorrect that she is wrong.
It is essentially merely a more complex case of the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true" is not true, yet that does not make it true.

Who cares if it's true? It's correct, meaningful and coherent.

When Carol says "no" indicating that "no" is an incorrect answer
this makes "no" the correct answer thus not incorrect thus Carol is wrong.

[Skepdick]

When Carol says "no" indicating that "no" is an incorrect answer
this makes "no" the correct answer thus not incorrect thus Carol is wrong.

Yes. Carol said so herself! She said she's right about being wrong.

Shame, seems your computer is failing to halt there...

[PeteOlcott]

When Carol says "no" indicating that "no" is an incorrect answer
this makes "no" the correct answer thus not incorrect thus Carol is wrong.

Yes. Carol said so herself! She said she's right about being wrong.

Making her wrong.
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
Is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for Carol
in the exact same way that

Does your input D halt on its input?
is a is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H
when D does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.

[Skepdick]

Making her wrong.

Yes, but she's right about that!

Does your input D halt on its input?
is a is a self-contradictory thus incorrect question for H
when D does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.

Carol's question is not a computational setting.

Liar liar, pants on fire!!!

[PeteOlcott]

Making her wrong.

Yes, but she's right about that!

"This sentence is not true." is not true because it is not a truth bearer.

The same thing applies to Carol. Anything that Carol can say is
incorrect because her question is self-contradictory thus incorrect.