Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about
 this point
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 18:24:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <1027qeu$qimo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1026vqt$kb6a$1@dont-email.me>
 <102703a$kcea$1@dont-email.me> <10270q6$ki5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <102715d$ipgg$3@dont-email.me> <10271sq$ki5i$2@dont-email.me>
 <10272c7$ipgg$4@dont-email.me> <10272o6$kt3u$1@dont-email.me>
 <10273h4$ipgg$6@dont-email.me> <102745p$lajf$1@dont-email.me>
 <10274cs$ipgg$7@dont-email.me> <10274ln$ldq3$1@dont-email.me>
 <102754h$ipgg$8@dont-email.me> <10275v1$lo22$1@dont-email.me>
 <102768b$ipgg$9@dont-email.me> <10276fd$lo22$2@dont-email.me>
 <10276pf$ipgg$10@dont-email.me> <10277j5$m30d$1@dont-email.me>
 <10278ai$ipgg$11@dont-email.me> <10279ha$mm0d$2@dont-email.me>
 <1027a5b$ipgg$12@dont-email.me> <1027c5c$nc63$2@dont-email.me>
 <1027dfj$ipgg$13@dont-email.me> <1027dpi$npoo$1@dont-email.me>
 <1027dsg$ipgg$15@dont-email.me> <1027e75$npoo$3@dont-email.me>
 <1027eej$nuf1$1@dont-email.me> <1027f4i$o022$1@dont-email.me>
 <1027fdh$nuf1$3@dont-email.me> <1027fjj$o7hl$1@dont-email.me>
 <1027fmg$nuf1$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 01:24:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0";
	logging-data="871128"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18safqCRnzf3hdMNYtLsEEA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oSazVkjprOeJ3ROXhwl/GtRLDZo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1027fmg$nuf1$5@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-4, 6/9/2025), Outbound message

On 6/9/2025 3:20 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote:>>>
>>>>> I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that:
>>>>>
>>>>> * What the halting problem proofs prove is correct
>>>>
>>>> I said it is correct under a false assumption dipshit.
>>>>
>>>> Are you too stupid to know that correct under a false
>>>> assumption means incorrect?
>>>
>>> And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that 
>>> performs the following mapping:
>>>
>>
>> That is not what I said you damned (condemned to actual Hell) liar.
>>
> 
> Try again:
> 
> 
> On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>  > A halt decider cannot exist
> 
> On 4/28/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>  > On 4/28/2025 11:54 AM, dbush wrote:
>  >> And the halting function below is not a computable function:
>  >>
>  >
>  > It is NEVER a computable function
>  >
>  >> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>  >>
>  >> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes 
> the following mapping:
>  >>
>  >> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>  >> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
> directly
> 
> On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>  > When we define the HP as having H return a value
>  > corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
>  > and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
>  > value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
>  > in to a problem having no solution.
> 

*This D cannot possibly be defined*
This has always been a huge mistake of the halting problem
proofs. When the problem calls for *an input* we must have
an actual input.

int main()
{
   DDD(); // IS NOT ANY INPUT TO THE HHH(DDD) THAT THIS DDD CALLS
}

It works this same way on every conventional HP proof.

> On 6/21/2024 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>  > the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H
>  > that correctly reports the halt status of input D that is
>  > defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H reports.
>  > Of course this is impossible.
> 

That would be the same as determining whether the Liar
Paradox is true or false thus an incorrect question
like this incorrect question: "What time is it (true or false)?"

> On 7/4/2023 12:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>  > If you frame the problem in that a halt decider must divide up finite
>  > strings pairs into those that halt when directly executed and those that
>  > do not, then no single program can do this.
> 

Because it requires a termination analyzer to report on
the behavior of its caller.

int main()
{
   DDD();
}

All deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUT
and their caller IS NOT THEIR INPUT.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer