Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

[Iwannaplato]

Carol's question is a perfect analog for undecidable decision problems.
Everyone always blames the software and not the input. It was a
computer science professor that wrote Carol's question.

When we understand that the only reason that Carol cannot
correctly answer the question is that there is something wrong
with it then we correctly blame the question and not Carol.

Yes.

[Skepdick]

An incorrect polar (yes/no) question is any question that lacks a
correct answer because it contradicts both yes and no answers. I
think that this is a brand new idea that started with me back in 2004.

The reason that I call this an incorrect question is that it correctly
places the blame for the lack of answer on the question rather than
assuming some fault of the one answering.

are questions that depend on time and clarification of meaning incorrect?

are you hungry?

-Imp

Questions that have no correct answer because of some fault
of the question are incorrect.

My first example was: "What time is it (yes or no)?"

You are merely transposing the notion of a return-type onto questions. e.g the return type of the question is a Boolean.

"What time is it?" is not a boolean return type. It's a date/time return-type.
"Is the time 09:32AM in London right now?" is a Boolean.

But what about the question "Does this question have a correct answer (yes or no)?"

Ultimately you are confused about the location of the "correctness" property. Is "correctness" a property of the question; or is it an assertion about the question? You are confused about the location of meaning.

[PeteOlcott]

Carol's question is a perfect analog for undecidable decision problems.
Everyone always blames the software and not the input. It was a
computer science professor that wrote Carol's question.

When we understand that the only reason that Carol cannot
correctly answer the question is that there is something wrong
with it then we correctly blame the question and not Carol.

Yes.

OK that is great. Since Carol's question is analogous (in very technical
terms this is an isomorphism) to decision problems having the exact
same self-referential structure that means that input data to some
algorithms is merely an incorrect question thus no actual limitation
of these algorithms.

The PhD computer science professor that wrote Carol's question wrote
it in response to the halting problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Since he did not explore the subfield of pragmatics within linguistics
to verify that the situational context of the question cannot be correctly
ignored no one was convinced that Carol's question is an incorrect
question. They all continue to believe that it is a perfectly correct
question that Carol just can't answer for some unexplained reason.

When we ask why can't Carol correctly answer this question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
by process of elimination we find that the only reason is that
the question is incorrect.

[Iwannaplato]

Carol's question is a perfect analog for undecidable decision problems.
Everyone always blames the software and not the input. It was a
computer science professor that wrote Carol's question.

When we understand that the only reason that Carol cannot
correctly answer the question is that there is something wrong
with it then we correctly blame the question and not Carol.

Yes.

OK that is great. Since Carol's question is analogous (in very technical
terms this is an isomorphism) to decision problems having the exact
same self-referential structure that means that input data to some
algorithms is merely an incorrect question thus no actual limitation
of these algorithms.

The PhD computer science professor that wrote Carol's question wrote
it in response to the halting problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Since he did not explore the subfield of pragmatics within linguistics
to verify that the situational context of the question cannot be correctly
ignored no one was convinced that Carol's question is an incorrect
question. They all continue to believe that it is a perfectly correct
question that Carol just can't answer for some unexplained reason.

When we ask why can't Carol correctly answer this question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
by process of elimination we find that the only reason is that
the question is incorrect.

I was able to go along with 'there is something wrong with the question.' Still balking at 'the question is incorrect'.
But I'm just some guy on the internet.

[PeteOlcott]

Yes.

OK that is great. Since Carol's question is analogous (in very technical
terms this is an isomorphism) to decision problems having the exact
same self-referential structure that means that input data to some
algorithms is merely an incorrect question thus no actual limitation
of these algorithms.

The PhD computer science professor that wrote Carol's question wrote
it in response to the halting problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Since he did not explore the subfield of pragmatics within linguistics
to verify that the situational context of the question cannot be correctly
ignored no one was convinced that Carol's question is an incorrect
question. They all continue to believe that it is a perfectly correct
question that Carol just can't answer for some unexplained reason.

When we ask why can't Carol correctly answer this question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
by process of elimination we find that the only reason is that
the question is incorrect.

I was able to go along with 'there is something wrong with the question.' Still balking at 'the question is incorrect'.
But I'm just some guy on the internet.

You have done far better than anyone else has ever done.
All of my prior reviewers have insisted that there is nothing
wrong with the question because they simply did not believe
in "situational context". (I never used that term before).

When there is something wrong with the question (such as the
question is contradictory) such that it has no correct answer
(within the situational context) then I think it is apt to classify
the question as incorrect (within that situational context).

That you accept that there is something wrong with the question
is better agreement than I have ever achieved previously (since 2004).

[Iwannaplato]

You have done far better than anyone else has ever done.
All of my prior reviewers have insisted that there is nothing
wrong with the question because they simply did not believe
in "situational context". (I never used that term before).

When there is something wrong with the question (such as the
question is contradictory) such that it has no correct answer
(within the situational context) then I think it is apt to classify
the question as incorrect (within that situational context).

That you accept that there is something wrong with the question
is better agreement than I have ever achieved previously (since 2004).

I'll give a shot at explaining why I balk at 'incorrect' but not at 'there is something wrong with it'.
A question, in this case, is an attempt to get at information (if we take the question seriously/at face value, rather than say ironic/being tricky/manipulative/etc.) It's not an assertion. It includes implict positions that are like assertions. So, the first problem I have with 'incorrect' is it is a global assessment. Rather than there is a problem with a part of it. If we take it at face value someone is trying to get information and this is conveyed. Even about what. The problem comes in because aimed at Carol, she cannot give one of the options available as an answer. But, if we take this question at face value, we have learned that the person wants to know something, that it has to do either with Carol or what one can do in this situation. There has been some effective communication and then there is something wrong with the question. So, to me it is more complicated than 'incorrect.' I live in Norway and this means I am used to long winter days. That's partially incorrect as a sentence, not simply an incorrect sentence. And part of this is me viewing a question as an act. An act between person A and at least one person B.

The second problem I have with 'incorrect', is that it seems like a category error judgment.

The question What is the capital of England? does not seem correct to me. As in 'that is a correct question.'
I would find it odd if I asked someone a question and they turned to someone else and said Oh, that was a correct question because it could be answered and met other criteria. So, even the postive 'correct' seems like a category error to me.

(there are situations where one might say 'that is the right question', which would mean something like, given your goals that was the right question to ask and not some other question. IOW it's not an evaluation of the question itself, how it is formulated, does it allow a correct answer and so on, but rather is it the right question for a given purpose.)

And to be clear again. Nothing I am saying here supports the responder not having a good answer being the responder's fault. I would be stunned if most people would think someone not able to answer your key example questions has a problem. In nearly 20 years????

To me incorrect question is a bit like incorrect horse. Though obviously a horse is further away from an assertion or truth claim than a question. I could happily go along with
that question includes an incorrect assumption, a false limitation on potential answers...., etc.. Assertions/descriptions of the question in a more nuanced way and actually focusing on the part that to me can be incorrect.

I can try to find some other examples that might be useful as contrast.

Exclamations. F---- me. Expressive rather than assertive. And not just that it's not literal - for example, someone might say this when angry at someone else. So, even taken metaphorically, it's an odd incorrect suggestion to fit the moment. If we look at it as a suggestion rather than expressive of frustration and rage.

A question does need good assumptions, in some perhaps nearly cases, to meet the goal of the questioner. To get information. But the assumptions are only part of the act.

An imperative. Someone swats a fly on their own shoulder that is near another person's shoulder. Person B says Don't try to hit me.

I don't think Don't try to hit me is an incorrect sentence.

The person misinterpreted what happened, but that sentence isn't incorrect - because that's not the right category of problem. (I'm a little unsure if this example helps, but I am searching around for ways to come at it). Even though there is an implicit mistake in the imperative sentence Don't try to hit me. - that the person was trying to hit themis false - I don't think the sentence is incorrect. The incorrectness, here, is outside the sentence, even though the sentence includes the assumption.

Anyway that's my mulling.

But I think the most important things is:

I am stunned that people would think the failure is in the person answering the types of questions you are studying. I mean, I'd love to take a compliment, but really, I find it very hard to believe people think there is a good answer for Carol so if she doesn't answer she's at fault for not giving information.

Probably I'd have a very different take on whatever the important ramifications of this issue are if I knew what they were.

[PeteOlcott]

You have done far better than anyone else has ever done.
All of my prior reviewers have insisted that there is nothing
wrong with the question because they simply did not believe
in "situational context". (I never used that term before).

When there is something wrong with the question (such as the
question is contradictory) such that it has no correct answer
(within the situational context) then I think it is apt to classify
the question as incorrect (within that situational context).

That you accept that there is something wrong with the question
is better agreement than I have ever achieved previously (since 2004).

I'll give a shot at explaining why I balk at 'incorrect' but not at 'there is something wrong with it'.
A question, in this case, is an attempt to get at information (if we take the question seriously/at face value, rather than say ironic/being tricky/manipulative/etc.) It's not an assertion. It includes implict positions that are like assertions. So, the first problem I have with 'incorrect' is it is a global assessment. Rather than there is a problem with a part of it. If we take it at face value someone is trying to get information and this is conveyed. Even about what. The problem comes in because aimed at Carol, she cannot give one of the options available as an answer. But, if we take this question at face value, we have learned that the person wants to know something, that it has to do either with Carol or what one can do in this situation. There has been some effective communication and then there is something wrong with the question. So, to me it is more complicated than 'incorrect.' I live in Norway and this means I am used to long winter days. That's partially incorrect as a sentence, not simply an incorrect sentence. And part of this is me viewing a question as an act. An act between person A and at least one person B.

The second problem I have with 'incorrect', is that it seems like a category error judgment.

The question What is the capital of England? does not seem correct to me. As in 'that is a correct question.'
I would find it odd if I asked someone a question and they turned to someone else and said Oh, that was a correct question because it could be answered and met other criteria. So, even the postive 'correct' seems like a category error to me.

(there are situations where one might say 'that is the right question', which would mean something like, given your goals that was the right question to ask and not some other question. IOW it's not an evaluation of the question itself, how it is formulated, does it allow a correct answer and so on, but rather is it the right question for a given purpose.)

And to be clear again. Nothing I am saying here supports the responder not having a good answer being the responder's fault. I would be stunned if most people would think someone not able to answer your key example questions has a problem. In nearly 20 years????

To me incorrect question is a bit like incorrect horse. Though obviously a horse is further away from an assertion or truth claim than a question. I could happily go along with
that question includes an incorrect assumption, a false limitation on potential answers...., etc.. Assertions/descriptions of the question in a more nuanced way and actually focusing on the part that to me can be incorrect.

I can try to find some other examples that might be useful as contrast.

Exclamations. F---- me. Expressive rather than assertive. And not just that it's not literal - for example, someone might say this when angry at someone else. So, even taken metaphorically, it's an odd incorrect suggestion to fit the moment. If we look at it as a suggestion rather than expressive of frustration and rage.

A question does need good assumptions, in some perhaps nearly cases, to meet the goal of the questioner. To get information. But the assumptions are only part of the act.

An imperative. Someone swats a fly on their own shoulder that is near another person's shoulder. Person B says Don't try to hit me.

I don't think Don't try to hit me is an incorrect sentence.

The person misinterpreted what happened, but that sentence isn't incorrect - because that's not the right category of problem. (I'm a little unsure if this example helps, but I am searching around for ways to come at it). Even though there is an implicit mistake in the imperative sentence Don't try to hit me. - that the person was trying to hit themis false - I don't think the sentence is incorrect. The incorrectness, here, is outside the sentence, even though the sentence includes the assumption.

Anyway that's my mulling.

But I think the most important things is:

I am stunned that people would think the failure is in the person answering the types of questions you are studying. I mean, I'd love to take a compliment, but really, I find it very hard to believe people think there is a good answer for Carol so if she doesn't answer she's at fault for not giving information.

Probably I'd have a very different take on whatever the important ramifications of this issue are if I knew what they were.

I am establishing the brand new notion of {incorrect question} as any question
that lacks a correct answer only because there is something wrong with the
question. This is being established on the basis of pure logic thus psychology
and other factors are excluded for consideration.

It has been 2000 years and people are still writing papers on how to
"resolve" the Liar paradox never noticing that it is simply not a truth bearer.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/

The ramifications of this {incorrect question} concept show that (at least some)
undecidable decision problems in computer science are merely unsound thus
do not actually limit computability at all.

I am stunned that people would think the failure is in the person answering
the types of questions you are studying.

It has always been the case that when precisely equivalent questions are
posed to software functions by their inputs that they always blame the
software and not the input.

[Iwannaplato]

It has always been the case that when precisely equivalent questions are
posed to software functions by their inputs that they always blame the
software and not the input.

That's a realm I don't know much about. I was thinking in terms of humans.

[PeteOlcott]

It has always been the case that when precisely equivalent questions are
posed to software functions by their inputs that they always blame the
software and not the input.

That's a realm I don't know much about. I was thinking in terms of humans.

That is why I didn't bring it up before.
When you bring the psychology of human interaction into it we lose the
stark contrast that whenever a question lacks a correct answer only because
there is something wrong with the question then it is the question and
thus not the answerer that is incorrect.

I had to discuss this in terms of linguistics and the philosophy of language
because mathematicians and logicians cannot think outside of the box of
what they learned by rote even if their life depended on it. They have
always made up their mind and closed it before I could ever say my first word.

[Iwannaplato]

That is why I didn't bring it up before.
When you bring the psychology of human interaction into it we lose the
stark contrast that whenever a question lacks a correct answer only because
there is something wrong with the question then it is the question and
thus not the answerer that is incorrect.

That seems odd to me. Computers, so far, and certainly with many types of programming are less flexible than humans. I mean, Garbage in, Garbage out may have been used for a different context, but I would have thought more people would have been able to extend that core idea to many contexts. I assume people aren't all hitting their computers with hammers when they or their software don't do what they want.

[PeteOlcott]

That is why I didn't bring it up before.
When you bring the psychology of human interaction into it we lose the
stark contrast that whenever a question lacks a correct answer only because
there is something wrong with the question then it is the question and
thus not the answerer that is incorrect.

That seems odd to me. Computers, so far, and certainly with many types of programming are less flexible than humans. I mean, Garbage in, Garbage out may have been used for a different context, but I would have thought more people would have been able to extend that core idea to many contexts. I assume people aren't all hitting their computers with hammers when they or their software don't do what they want.

I have spent thousands and thousands of hours on the halting problem proofs since 2004
and it turns out that the only reason that they cannot be solved is that the input program
presents an incorrect question to its halt corresponding decider. I said this in 2004 too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

I spent the last five full time years creating a system that bypasses this problem.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Input_D

My program recognizes the faulty input and rejects it. I don't think that anyone has
ever done this before because they never even understood that the input was unsound.
Instead of construing the input as incorrect it has always been construed as simply
too difficult for any halt decider to figure out.

[Skepdick]

Carol's question is a perfect analog for undecidable decision problems.
Everyone always blames the software and not the input. It was a
computer science professor that wrote Carol's question.

When we understand that the only reason that Carol cannot
correctly answer the question is that there is something wrong
with it then we correctly blame the question and not Carol.

Yes.

OK that is great. Since Carol's question is analogous (in very technical
terms this is an isomorphism) to decision problems having the exact
same self-referential structure that means that input data to some
algorithms is merely an incorrect question thus no actual limitation
of these algorithms.

The PhD computer science professor that wrote Carol's question wrote
it in response to the halting problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Since he did not explore the subfield of pragmatics within linguistics
to verify that the situational context of the question cannot be correctly
ignored no one was convinced that Carol's question is an incorrect
question. They all continue to believe that it is a perfectly correct
question that Carol just can't answer for some unexplained reason.

When we ask why can't Carol correctly answer this question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
by process of elimination we find that the only reason is that
the question is incorrect.

When you make the context of the question explicit, the question "Is question X incorrect?" is still a decision problem.

If you are going to claim "incorrectness" or any other property then produce the decider which identifies that property.

If the input data to your algorithm is somehow wrong then let the algorithm say so - it's basic data validation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_validation

[Age]

There is an enormously greater issue at stake here.
I can't even hint at that until I have a broad consensus.

WHY NOT?

Surely you COULD hint at the alleged 'greater issue at stake' WITHOUT ANY consensus, let alone a BROAD consensus, right?

How MUCH 'consensus' are you WAITING FOR, BEFORE you MOVE ALONG here?

[Age]

That is why I didn't bring it up before.
When you bring the psychology of human interaction into it we lose the
stark contrast that whenever a question lacks a correct answer only because
there is something wrong with the question then it is the question and
thus not the answerer that is incorrect.

That seems odd to me. Computers, so far, and certainly with many types of programming are less flexible than humans. I mean, Garbage in, Garbage out may have been used for a different context, but I would have thought more people would have been able to extend that core idea to many contexts. I assume people aren't all hitting their computers with hammers when they or their software don't do what they want.

I have spent thousands and thousands of hours on the halting problem proofs since 2004
and it turns out that the only reason that they cannot be solved is that the input program
presents an incorrect question to its halt corresponding decider. I said this in 2004 too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

I spent the last five full time years creating a system that bypasses this problem.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Input_D

My program recognizes the faulty input and rejects it.
I don't think that anyone has
ever done this before because they never even understood that the input was unsound.
Instead of construing the input as incorrect it has always been construed as simply
too difficult for any halt decider to figure out.

Does 'your program' WORK?

[Sculptor]

There are many incorrect questions..
"Why are we hear?"
"Have you stopped beating your wife. Yes or No."