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: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:40:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 19:40:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e82f76cbf70c4c740fdbf97a3b1eefca";
	logging-data="535486"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188roJcskbDqQEVKCawk1IH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zhkXNB7klKAIRI/emluz3fIULdk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4007

On 6/4/2024 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-03 18:14:39 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/3/2024 9:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-03 12:20:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been 
>>>>>> posted here.
>>>>>> PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in 
>>>>>> various traces.
>>>>>> i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged both 
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!
>>>>>
>>>>> He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result 
>>>>> for
>>>>> H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone 
>>>>> continues to
>>>>> discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
>>>> accept or reject state.
>>>
>>> That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
>>> If the computed mapping differs from the specified one the
>>> decider does not solve the problem.
>>
>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>> sum(2,3) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6.
> 
> That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
> If the mapping computed by sum differs from the specified one
> the program sum does not solve the problem.
> 

On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting,
 > which IS about the direct execution of DD

Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must
compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH).

When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the
*HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY*

When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no
an answer that H provides then the counter-example input
is precisely isomorphic to the question:
Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false?
Thus that question and the HP question are both incorrect
because both yes and no are the wrong answer.

The theory of computation may be ignorant of the details of
how the context of who is asked a question changes the meaning
of this question, none-the-less this cannot be ignored.
It is and remains incorrect for the theory of computation
to ignore this.

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