Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 21:14:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <v3ltaa$8gjv$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>
 <v3lrvi$4h2j$2@dont-email.me> <v3lsd0$2uv04$16@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 04:14:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e82f76cbf70c4c740fdbf97a3b1eefca";
	logging-data="279167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RNNGxdmImHHlaWSDyXNoI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AcBgIrsdV6AvKtvAG2pRNN7nDnA=
In-Reply-To: <v3lsd0$2uv04$16@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3836

On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/3/24 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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."
> 
> But the answer the decider gives isn't random, because algorithms are 
> not random.
> 

Then explain exactly how this is not deception:
"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*
> 
> But both answers aren't wrong. Remember, the question is built to make a 
> SPECIFIC decider wrong, and by its algorithm, it will give a SPECIFIC 
> answer to each SPECIFIC question.
> 

You can't get away with that head game by pretending
to not understand what infinite an set of H/D pairs is.

I really hope you don't condemn yourself to Hell over this.
But I was just having fun being a Troll... Is Hell worth that?
I myself would not take the chance.

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