Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:23 pm**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 5:26 pm Unless we have the correct/incorrect dichotomy computer science people
will reject what I am saying as vague and thus having no relevance to
computer science what-so-ever.

Sure, I didn't really know the context.

I also must have the support of linguists and philosophers of language
otherwise the computer science people will construe my ideas as baseless.

Well, I'm just some guy on the internet and I'm not a philosopher or linguist

Incorrect statements are assertions of natural language that cannot possibly
be resolved to true or false because of some fault of the statement.

In the formal languages of mathematics they would be propositions
that cannot possible have a Boolean value (of true or false).

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously was composed by Noam Chomsky
in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is
grammatically well-formed, but semantically nonsensical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless ... _furiously

Is simply false since there cannot be any "Colorless green ideas" we can know that
they don't "sleep furiously "

I'd say that sentence of Chomsky's is nonsense, not false.

It has been 2000 years and many modern day philosophers still do not understand
"This sentence is not true."
Cannot be resolved to a truth value because it is not a truth bearer because
it is self-contradictory. Recent papers are still trying to resolve it to a truth value.

That seems strange.

Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer. If it works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts. I'd prefer labels like: unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless, self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling, unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...
and then more controversially (for me):
spurious
illusory
mirage
pseudo

Incorrect polar (yes/no) questions are polar questions because of some fault
of the question cannot possibly have a correct (yes/no) answer.
(This is a brand new category that I am establishing)

(1) What time it is (yes or no)?
(2) "This sentence is not true." Is it (a) true or (b) false?
(3) "Can you correctly answer "no" to this question?"
(4) When posed to Carol: "Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"

The reason that this is important is that all of computer science is artificially
constrained by a notions of undecidability that includes the inability of correctly
answering incorrect questions thus preventing huge strides in more powerful
computation under the misconception that these advancements are impossible.

The key life or extinction of humanity depends on these advancements coming
to fruition. We really need to mathematically formalize the notion of (analytic)
truth so that dangerous counter-factual propaganda can be utterly disavowed
every which way before it gets any chance to take root.
So, you think this will help in, for example, politics?

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:34 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:23 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 5:26 pm Unless we have the correct/incorrect dichotomy computer science people
will reject what I am saying as vague and thus having no relevance to
computer science what-so-ever.
Sure, I didn't really know the context.

I also must have the support of linguists and philosophers of language
otherwise the computer science people will construe my ideas as baseless.
Well, I'm just some guy on the internet and I'm not a philosopher or linguist, though I've read and mulled a chunk of the former and a smattering of the latter field.

Incorrect statements are assertions of natural language that cannot possibly
be resolved to true or false because of some fault of the statement.

In the formal languages of mathematics they would be propositions
that cannot possible have a Boolean value (of true or false).

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously was composed by Noam Chomsky
in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is
grammatically well-formed, but semantically nonsensical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless ... _furiously

Is simply false since there cannot be any "Colorless green ideas" we can know that
they don't "sleep furiously "
I'd say that sentence of Chomsky's is nonsense, not false.

It has been 2000 years and many modern day philosophers still do not understand
"This sentence is not true."
Cannot be resolved to a truth value because it is not a truth bearer because
it is self-contradictory. Recent papers are still trying to resolve it to a truth value.
That seems strange.

Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer.
(This is a brand new category that I am establishing)
If 'incorrect' works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts.

Incorrect polar (yes/no) questions are polar questions because of some fault
of the question cannot possibly have a correct (yes/no) answer.
(This is a brand new category that I am establishing)

(1) What time it is (yes or no)?
(2) "This sentence is not true." Is it (a) true or (b) false?
(3) "Can you correctly answer "no" to this question?"
(4) When posed to Carol: "Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"

The reason that this is important is that all of computer science is artificially
constrained by a notions of undecidability that includes the inability of correctly
answering incorrect questions thus preventing huge strides in more powerful
computation under the misconception that these advancements are impossible.

The key life or extinction of humanity depends on these advancements coming
to fruition. We really need to mathematically formalize the notion of (analytic)
truth so that dangerous counter-factual propaganda can be utterly disavowed
every which way before it gets any chance to take root.
So, you think this will help in, for example, politics?

Once we overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem by correctly
formalizing the notion of analytical truth, then a smart chatbot
could form every possible argument at every language level and
make people lying about election fraud and climate change look
ridiculously foolish even to themselves.

While we continue to allow Tarski to remain unrefuted despicable
lies can be passed off as legitimate opinion. This can cause the
extinction of humanity and the end of Democracy.

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:44 pm**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:34 pm Once we overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem by correctly
formalizing the notion of analytical truth, then a smart chatbot
could form every possible argument at every language level and
make people lying about election fraud and climate change look
ridiculously foolish even to themselves.

While we continue to allow Tarski to remain unrefuted despicable
lies can be passed off as legitimate opinion. This can cause the
extinction of humanity and the end of Democracy.

I added a bit in the previous post while you were posting....

Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer. If it works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts. I'd prefer labels like: unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless, self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling, unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...
and then more controversially (for me):
spurious
illusory
mirage
pseudo

I have to say I am skeptical that the solution to political problems and madness will come through a chatbot. Those who control the chatbot will have so much abusable power. And people will want it explained. And then we will again have the debate outside the bots. We can already show that politicians lie and say falsehoods. The bot said so is not going to convince people any more than experts can now.

But a bot that could do that could nevertheless be useful. And also, of course, I could be wrong.

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:52 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:44 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:34 pm Once we overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem by correctly
formalizing the notion of analytical truth, then a smart chatbot
could form every possible argument at every language level and
make people lying about election fraud and climate change look
ridiculously foolish even to themselves.

While we continue to allow Tarski to remain unrefuted despicable
lies can be passed off as legitimate opinion. This can cause the
extinction of humanity and the end of Democracy.
I added a bit in the previous post while you were posting....
Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer. If it works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts. I'd prefer labels like: unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless, self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling, unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...
and then more controversially (for me):
spurious
illusory
mirage
pseudo
I have to say I am skeptical that the solution to political problems and madness will come through a chatbot. Those who control the chatbot will have so much abusable power. And people will want it explained. And then we will again have the debate outside the bots. We can already show that politicians lie and say falsehoods. The bot said so is not going to convince people any more than experts can now.

But a bot that could do that could nevertheless be useful. And also, of course, I could be wrong.

The chatbot will have to be anchored in sound deductive inference
and be able to show all of its work. The reason that we need a chatbot
to do this is because no one else could simultaneously argue against
100 million people and do it at their exact level of understanding.

The resources that the despicable liars have enormously outweigh
the resources of all of the truth tellers. The fossil fuel industry
is worth 20 trillion dollars.

The way things currently stand the current [received view] is that there
is no such thing as objective truth that can be objectively defined. This
allows despicable lies that can make humanity extinct to have equal
footing and carry the same weight as objectively verified facts.

Posted: **Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:23 pm
Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer.
If it works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts. I'd prefer labels like: unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless, self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling, unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...
and then more controversially (for me):
spurious
illusory
mirage
pseudo

Unless we explicitly place the blame on the question it will remain with
the answerer as it has since 1936. Calling it an {incorrect question}
does this.

Undecidability in computer science always places the blame on the
software instead of blaming the semantically unsound input.

The reason that this is so important to me is that I spent 20,000
hours since 2004 refuting the most important computer science
theorem that exists: (The halting theorem) by making a computer
program that produces three return values:
(a) Halts
(b) Does not Halt
(c) Bad Input
and my work does not count because I am only allowed to say yes or no.

The x86utm operating system (includes several termination analyzers)
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:51 am**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm Unless we explicitly place the blame on the question it will remain with
the answerer as it has since 1936. Calling it an {incorrect question}
does this.

Well, you're the expert of the context you are seeking solutions in. So, as said, if only 'incorrect' will work, well, that's the best solution.
Pretty much all the adjectives I listed blame the question. They are all negative, given that we are talking about questions. Questions are seeking answers, resolution, determination (of something). They all blame the question for something, but with different ways of conceiving of that something.

Undecidability in computer science always places the blame on the
software instead of blaming the semantically unsound input.

I'm amazed by this as the illiterate layperson I am in that field. Again, that garbage in, garbage out idea, which I may have misinterpreted long, long ago, seems to make this an obviously possibilility.

The reason that this is so important to me is that I spent 20,000
hours since 2004 refuting the most important computer science
theorem that exists: (The halting theorem) by making a computer
program that produces three return values:
(a) Halts
(b) Does not Halt
(c) Bad Input

Heck, I like 'bad input' better. That seems less of a category error to me than incorrect.
It seems like literally correct. In computing the question is a form of input and here it's bad.

and my work does not count because I am only allowed to say yes or no.

But, again, pragmatically, of course, go with what works. I don't use cymbals when training horses, even if they are one of the surest ways of signalling.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:54 am**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:52 pm The chatbot will have to be anchored in sound deductive inference
and be able to show all of its work. The reason that we need a chatbot
to do this is because no one else could simultaneously argue against
100 million people and do it at their exact level of understanding.

The resources that the despicable liars have enormously outweigh
the resources of all of the truth tellers. The fossil fuel industry
is worth 20 trillion dollars.

The way things currently stand the current [received view] is that there
is no such thing as objective truth that can be objectively defined. This
allows despicable lies that can make humanity extinct to have equal
footing and carry the same weight as objectively verified facts.

I think that 20 trillion is still going to trump the bots. They'll have their own bots with 'transparent' 'deduction' aimed at citizens and politicians.

But you can imagine what your bot can do in a way I cannot. It doesn't sound like something that could hurt.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:14 am**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:51 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm Unless we explicitly place the blame on the question it will remain with
the answerer as it has since 1936. Calling it an {incorrect question}
does this.
Well, you're the expert of the context you are seeking solutions in. So, as said, if only 'incorrect' will work, well, that's the best solution.
Pretty much all the adjectives I listed blame the question. They are all negative, given that we are talking about questions. Questions are seeking answers, resolution, determination (of something). They all blame the question for something, but with different ways of conceiving of that something.

It must be the case that the philosophy of language people are
the thought leaders that teach others that when a question has
no correct answer only because something is wrong with the
question that means that the question is incorrect. None of your
suggestions clearly place the blame on the question.

The conventional term for this case is that the question is
undecidable as if there was some difficulty making up one's mind.
Because this has been the mindset since 1936 we need very
sharp contrast to rip away the bias away.

All of your terms:

unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless,
self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling,
unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...

would be simply taken a synonyms for undecidable.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:26 am**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:51 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm
Undecidability in computer science always places the blame on the
software instead of blaming the semantically unsound input.
I'm amazed by this as the illiterate layperson I am in that field. Again, that garbage in, garbage out idea, which I may have misinterpreted long, long ago, seems to make this an obviously possibilility.

90 years of indoctrination can be very powerful.
The input is a correct program and its input is also correct.

The Liar Paradox structure comes in when the input
program does the opposite of whatever it halt decider
says it will do.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:32 am**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:44 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:34 pm Once we overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem by correctly
formalizing the notion of analytical truth, then a smart chatbot
could form every possible argument at every language level and
make people lying about election fraud and climate change look
ridiculously foolish even to themselves.

While we continue to allow Tarski to remain unrefuted despicable
lies can be passed off as legitimate opinion. This can cause the
extinction of humanity and the end of Democracy.
I added a bit in the previous post while you were posting....
Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer. If it works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts. I'd prefer labels like: unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless, self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling, unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...
and then more controversially (for me):
spurious
illusory
mirage
pseudo
I have to say I am skeptical that the solution to political problems and madness will come through a chatbot. Those who control the chatbot will have so much abusable power. And people will want it explained. And then we will again have the debate outside the bots. We can already show that politicians lie and say falsehoods. The bot said so is not going to convince people any more than experts can now.

Absolutely NO one has to be some so-called 'expert' to KNOW when a so-called "politician" LIES.

If someone PROMISES to do, or PROMISES to NOT do, some 'thing', but then does the opposite, then they, OBVIOUSLY, just told a LIE, or LIED.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:44 pm But a bot that could do that could nevertheless be useful. And also, of course, I could be wrong.

If human beings had 'd/evolved' so much to such a point that they NEED A 'robot' to INFORM them of when "another human being" has LIED to them, then USING 'artificial intelligence' INSTEAD OF 'actual intelligence' is probably NEEDED. BUT, do NOT expect human beings to continue on for much longer, afterwards.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:41 am**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:23 pm
Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer.
If it works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts. I'd prefer labels like: unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless, self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling, unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...
and then more controversially (for me):
spurious
illusory
mirage
pseudo
Unless we explicitly place the blame on the question it will remain with
the answerer as it has since 1936. Calling it an {incorrect question}
does this.

WHY are you SO, so-called, 'hell-bent' ON BLAMING 'the question' itself, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING the IRREFUTABLE Fact that ANY and ALL QUESTIONS exist BECAUSE OF 'you', human beings.

How about BLAMING "your" OWN "selves" for 'your' OWN DOING, INSTEAD of ALWAYS 'trying to' BLAME some OTHER 'thing'?

Has 'this' REALLY NOT YET occurred to 'you', human beings?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm Undecidability in computer science always places the blame on the
software instead of blaming the semantically unsound input.

AND, ALL of the 'input' comes FROM 'you', human beings.

ALSO, 'you', "peteolcott", criticizing 'the blame' being PUT ON the 'wrong thing' IS Truly CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL considering the Fact that 'you' PUT 'the blame' of a so-called 'incorrect question' ON the ACTUAL 'question', itself. WHEN, OBVIOUSLY, ALL QUESTIONS ARISE from 'the human being', itself.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm The reason that this is so important to me is that I spent 20,000
hours since 2004 refuting the most important computer science
theorem that exists: (The halting theorem) by making a computer
program that produces three return values:
(a) Halts
(b) Does not Halt
(c) Bad Input
and my work does not count because I am only allowed to say yes or no.

The x86utm operating system (includes several termination analyzers)
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

If 'I' was 'you', human beings, 'I' would get 'my own house in order', as some might say, BEFORE I even BEGAN to LOOK AT 'fixing' ANY OTHER issue.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:53 am**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:14 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:51 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm Unless we explicitly place the blame on the question it will remain with
the answerer as it has since 1936. Calling it an {incorrect question}
does this.
Well, you're the expert of the context you are seeking solutions in. So, as said, if only 'incorrect' will work, well, that's the best solution.
Pretty much all the adjectives I listed blame the question. They are all negative, given that we are talking about questions. Questions are seeking answers, resolution, determination (of something). They all blame the question for something, but with different ways of conceiving of that something.
It must be the case that the philosophy of language people are
the thought leaders that teach others that when a question has
no correct answer only because something is wrong with the
question that means that the question is incorrect. None of your
suggestions clearly place the blame on the question.

I thought that "iwwanaplato" and 'I' had made it VERY CLEAR that 'those ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, or just ABSURD questions' ARE just ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, AND ABSURD questions, which you are Truly FREE to call 'incorrect questions'.

The WHOLE REASON 'those questions' can NOT BE ANSWERED IS BECAUSE 'they' ARE just 'ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL and/or ABSURD questions'.

If ANY one ASSUMES or BELIEVES that 'those types of questions' can be ANSWERED, then JUST ANSWER them.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm The conventional term for this case is that the question is
undecidable as if there was some difficulty making up one's mind.

Well take 'this' up with THE people who 'think' 'that way'.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm Because this has been the mindset since 1936 we need very
sharp contrast to rip away the bias away.

The so-called 'mindset' of 'you', human beings, SINCE WAY BEFORE '1936' is that 'you', adult human beings, KNOW what IS 'right', do NOT do 'wrong', BLAME "others" for 'your' OWN DOING, and JUDGE, HUMILIATE, RIDICULE, and PUNISH "others", even CHILDREN for that matter. NOW, what is the BEST WAY to 'RIP AWAY' these Truly DISTORTED WAYS of 'thinking' FROM 'you', adult human beings?

I would consider 'this' to be some 'thing' one would be better SPENDING time ON rather than just 'trying to' change the name FROM a question that is 'undecidable' to just being 'incorrect'.

AND, considering that 'those questions' ARE, in fact, just NONSENSICAL QUESTIONS ANYWAY, then WHY NOT JUST call 'them' OUT for what 'they' TRULY ARE, anyway?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm All of your terms:
unresolvable, unanswerable, irresolvable, solutionless,
self-undermining, indeterminable, self-cancelling,
unfullfillable (request), self-subverting...
would be simply taken a synonyms for undecidable.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:55 am**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:26 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:51 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm
I'm amazed by this as the illiterate layperson I am in that field. Again, that garbage in, garbage out idea, which I may have misinterpreted long, long ago, seems to make this an obviously possibilility.
90 years of indoctrination can be very powerful.

IMAGINE what thousands upon thousands of years of the INDOCTRINATION; 'In the beginning', has done to 'you', human beings.

Even the so-called "scientists" of the world STILL BELIEVE that there was A BEGINNING.

LOL Talk ABOUT 'indoctrination', at its BEST.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:12 pm The input is a correct program and its input is also correct.

The Liar Paradox structure comes in when the input
program does the opposite of whatever it halt decider
says it will do.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:25 am**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:14 am It must be the case that the philosophy of language people are
the thought leaders that teach others that when a question has
no correct answer only because something is wrong with the
question that means that the question is incorrect. None of your
suggestions clearly place the blame on the question.

I think they do. A question that is unaswerable defeats itself and you cannot blame something/someone for not answering an unanswerable question. For example. You cannot say the software should have answered or Carol should have answered it.

The conventional term for this case is that the question is
undecidable as if there was some difficulty making up one's mind.
Because this has been the mindset since 1936 we need very
sharp contrast to rip away the bias away.

If something is undecidable that is the quality of the question or choice. Why didn't you decide? It's undecidable.
Not: I am indecisive. Or I am stymied.
Those adjective apply to the question not the potential responder. They modify the question. What kind of question? That kind.

A tough question, leaves room for a response. And any adjective that means someone might be able to answer it correctly. Or really answer at all. The adjectives I list all blame the question.

Why didn't you resolve it? It was unresolvable. Oh, ok.

would be simply taken a synonyms for undecidable.

I like undecidable also.

It's a bit like a problem cannot be incorrect. Perhaps it is not solvable. If so we label it so. The people who try to solve it are not to blame (except for wasting their time).

An incorrect problem. ehhh
An unsolvable problem. Ah.

And incorrect question. ehhh
An unanswerable problem. Ah.

I can't see how you can possibly blame someone/something for not answering an unanswerable question.

Though I think we can see that some questions cannot be answered and it is must harder to be sure a problem cannot be solved.

Posted: **Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:21 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:25 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:14 am It must be the case that the philosophy of language people are
the thought leaders that teach others that when a question has
no correct answer only because something is wrong with the
question that means that the question is incorrect. None of your
suggestions clearly place the blame on the question.
I think they do. A question that is unaswerable defeats itself and you cannot blame something/someone for not answering an unanswerable question. For example. You cannot say the software should have answered or Carol should have answered it.

The conventional term for this case is that the question is
undecidable as if there was some difficulty making up one's mind.
Because this has been the mindset since 1936 we need very
sharp contrast to rip away the bias away.
If something is undecidable that is the quality of the question or choice. Why didn't you decide? It's undecidable.
Not: I am indecisive. Or I am stymied.
Those adjective apply to the question not the potential responder. They modify the question. What kind of question? That kind.

A tough question, leaves room for a response. And any adjective that means someone might be able to answer it correctly. Or really answer at all. The adjectives I list all blame the question.

Why didn't you resolve it? It was unresolvable. Oh, ok.

would be simply taken a synonyms for undecidable.
I like undecidable also.

It's a bit like a problem cannot be incorrect. Perhaps it is not solvable. If so we label it so. The people who try to solve it are not to blame (except for wasting their time).

An incorrect problem. ehhh
An unsolvable problem. Ah.

And incorrect question. ehhh
An unanswerable problem. Ah.

I can't see how you can possibly blame someone/something for not answering an unanswerable question.

Though I think we can see that some questions cannot be answered and it is must harder to be sure a problem cannot be solved.

Unless I can get a very broad consensus that questions that have no
correct answer because there is something wrong with the question
are {incorrect questions} the status quo of blaming the software
will remain. It is also the case that people that point out that there is
something wrong with the question are ridiculed as crackpots.

Math and logic people tend to be of the religion that math and logic
are inherently infallible and anyone believing otherwise must be nuts.

Philosophy Now Forum

Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

Re: Exploring the idea of an incorrect question