Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: The error of the halting problem
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:44:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3lrh1$2uv03$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3lafd$1uml$1@dont-email.me> <v3loms$2uv04$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3lou5$43oa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 01:44:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3111939"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3lou5$43oa$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2853
Lines: 42

On 6/3/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/3/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/3/24 4:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
>>> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>
>>> The way that the halting problem is conventionally understood is that H
>>> must correctly answer yes or no to an input that contradicts both
>>> answers, thus H is being asked a question isomorphic to the Liar
>>> Paradox: Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>>
>> But it doesn't reduce to that, as the decider was fixed in code first, 
>> and then, by using that code, a question is constructed WITH A RIGHT 
>> ANSWER, that just isn't the answer that this decider happens to give.
>>
>> You just don't seem to understand logic well enough to understand that 
>> not that subtitle difference.
>>
> 
> In other words you are trying to get away with saying
> that it is only random chance that H gets the wrong
> answer not that the game is rigged against H.
> 
> 

There is nothing "random" about it, if there was there would be a chance 
it could get it right.

The game IS just impossible to do, so HH will just always lose.

Its not fair to call it "rigged" as the results were not intentional, 
but it just turned out that way.

Sort of like it is impossible to create an always winning stratagy in 
Tic-Tac-Toe. It isn't like the game was DESIGNED to make that true, it 
just turned out that way.

For EVERY deterministic 2 player game, there will always be at least one 
player who doesn't have a winning strategy. That doesn't make it 
"rigged", just a fact of life.