Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.hispagatos.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two computer science professors agree with Flibble
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 07:25:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <43af129a26f4a4cea7d98bedbef0f777c9790b88@i2pn2.org>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <87cyd5182l.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me>
 <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me> <vui4uf$20dpc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuivtb$2lf64$3@dont-email.me> <vungtl$2v2kr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuoaac$3jn5n$5@dont-email.me> <vuq81v$1hjka$1@dont-email.me>
 <vutefq$gmbi$3@dont-email.me> <vv22hs$puqs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv89ll$2erlq$4@dont-email.me> <vv8en2$2kjgk$3@dont-email.me>
 <vv8ot8$2ub3p$1@dont-email.me> <vv8pqu$2ut5q$1@dont-email.me>
 <5YRRP.109778$_Npd.21893@fx01.ams4> <vv8qkt$2uhjq$2@dont-email.me>
 <87a57ramha.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vv94qm$383jd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vv99l9$3h92p$2@dont-email.me> <vv9a6f$3hjhu$2@dont-email.me>
 <88354f2cb2957ab5d5b5f1cc4247ae436d6364dd@i2pn2.org>
 <vvboqd$1oqd2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 11:29:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3368344"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvboqd$1oqd2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/5/25 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2025 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/4/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> The function is neither computable nor incomputable because 
>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>> function at all, just a category error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a point of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so 
>>>>>> daft
>>>>>> that it's not someone's point of view.  The technical-sounding waffle
>>>>>> about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
>>>>>> the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
>>>>>> undecidable problems.  For example, whether or not a context-free
>>>>>> grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
>>>>>> correspondence problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
>>>>> to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
>>>>> "This sentence is not true".
>>>>>
>>>>> When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
>>>>> does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
>>>>> then both Boolean return values are incorrect 
>>>>
>>>> False.  One value is correct and one is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,
>>> Even though D halts or fails to halt.
>>
>> No, the given H can only return one of the values.
>>
>> The other one is correct.
>>
>>>
>>> The linguistic context of WHO IS ASKED is an essential
>>> part of the question.
>>
>> No, because H^ has the same behavior to all deciders, it only makes H 
>> wrong, as it behaves the opposite of whichever is the one answer that 
>> H gives.
>>
>>>
>>> Math and Comp Sci people that are clueless about these
>>> details of how language actually works think that they
>>> can get away with ignoring a crucial part of the actual
>>> question.
>>
>> No, you are clueless as to the requirements of H being a program / 
>> fixed algorithm.
>>
> 
> That is NOT what professor Sipser agreed to.
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>      stop running unless aborted then
> 
> *would never stop running unless aborted*
> is one actual input and the hypothetical
> HHH/DD that never aborts.
> 

But hypothetical DD isn't the DD that was given to the original HHH, and 
thuys you are just admitting that you have been lying about what was 
meant by the statement, because you are just too stupid to know what you 
are talling about.

The input D calls a particular version of H, and to be that input, it 
can only call that version. To change it is to lie about what things are.

Sorry, you just punched your ticket to the lake of fire.