Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: The error of the halting problem
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:51:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v3lrvi$4h2j$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3lafd$1uml$1@dont-email.me> <v3loms$2uv04$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3lou5$43oa$1@dont-email.me> <v3lrh1$2uv03$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 03:51:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e82f76cbf70c4c740fdbf97a3b1eefca";
	logging-data="148563"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181YH6H+qR/X6b3AJyZHrDI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D8Wly5GGjuh4VOhuL6Ckdpnt0VQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3lrh1$2uv03$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3057

On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

Then why did you say it was random?
"just isn't the answer that this decider happens to give."

When H is asked a yes/no question where both answers are
contradicted by its input *IT IS A FREAKING RIGGED GAME*

*You seem to be a mindless automaton that is hard-wired to disagree*

Both professor Hehner and professor Stoddard said essentially
this same thing in much more words.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer