Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Unpartial Halt Deciders --- category error
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 15:44:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <vu11vg$27281$2@dont-email.me>
References: <eMsMP.1404976$NN2a.428619@fx15.ams4>
 <87zfgdnufj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <0JxMP.1398486$cgs7.284882@fx14.ams4>
 <87sem5nu3q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vtv6mg$j95s$1@dont-email.me>
 <438052adf5074f27313bbb52c9f14c20fcfa2418@i2pn2.org>
 <TjMMP.1429459$dBr6.89316@fx04.ams4>
 <a65de5ee2ccfd187dff057a855741fb14ab93daa@i2pn2.org>
 <PCRMP.506596$X61.377772@fx07.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 22:44:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="08d11b4b162d6bbd305a554bf1d3c94a";
	logging-data="2328833"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193/lfmGvuWbNaAvuj90LxG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZPuMMcXArTBFabNA/3EZKPZ/yUs=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250419-6, 4/19/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <PCRMP.506596$X61.377772@fx07.ams4>
Bytes: 6372

On 4/19/2025 1:06 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:34:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> On 4/19/25 8:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 07:55:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/2025 2:32 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:25:36 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>>>>>>>>> I, aka Mr Flibble, have created a new computer science term, the
>>>>>>>>> "Unpartial Halt Decider".  It is a Halt Decider over the domain
>>>>>>>>> of all program-input pairs excluding pathological input (a
>>>>>>>>> manifestation of the self referencial category error).
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a rigorous definition of "pathological input"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there an algorithm to determine whether a given input is
>>>>>>>> "pathological" or not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could define an is_prime() function like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        bool is_prime(int n) {
>>>>>>>>            return n >= 3 && n % 2 == 1;
>>>>>>>>            // returns true for odd numbers >= 3, false for
>>>>>>>>            all others
>>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll just say that odd numbers that are not prime are pathological
>>>>>>>> input, so I don't have to deal with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pathological input:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Self-referencial to the decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a *rigorous* definition of "pathological input"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there an algorithm to determine whether a given input is
>>>>>> "pathological" or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>      if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>      return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Patterns isomorphic to the above when simulated by HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Examples are not definitions.
>>>>
>>>> And the problem is that the above example is itself a category error
>>>> for the problem, as the DD provided above isn't a complete program, as
>>>> it doesn't include the code for HHH as required, and when you include
>>>> Halt7.c as part of the input, your HHH isn't a seperate program of its
>>>> own, and thus doesn't have a Turing Complete range of inputs it can
>>>> accept.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you are just showing you don't understand what it means to
>>>> DEFINE something.
>>>
>>> Ah, the fundamental mistake you have been making all this time, Damon!
>>> The self-referencial category error doesn't magically disappear by
>>> providing source code rather than a run-time function address to the
>>> decider; you are simply transforming the same input without affecting
>>> the result.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> And WHAT is the category error?  You stil can't show the difference in
>> CATEGORY between what is allowed and what isn't, and in fact, you can't
>> even precisely define what is and isn't allowed.
>>
>> Now, you also run into the issue that the "Olcott System" begins with an
>> actual category error as we do not have the required two seperate
>> programs of the "Decider" and the "Program to be decided on" given via
>> representation as the input, as what you want to call that program to be
>> decided isn't one without including the code of the decider it is using,
>> and when you do include it, the arguments about no version of the
>> decider being able to succeed is improper as it must always be that
>> exact program that we started with, and thus it just FAILS to do a
>> correct simulation, while a correct simulation of this exact input
>> (which includes the ORIGINAL decider) will halt.
>>
>> Sorry, YOU are the one stuck with the fundamental mistake, or is it a
>> funny mental mistake because you don't understand what you are talking
>> about.
> 
> The category error is extant over the domain of pathological inputs, no
> matter what form those inputs take.
> 
> /Flibble

The category error in the halting problem proof is
to define an input D that is able to actually do the
opposite of whatever value that H reports.

Now the question: Does the input D halt becomes
self-contradictory for H.

So it is asking a yes/no question where both yes and
no are the wrong answer that is the category error.

Objective and Subjective Specifications
Eric C.R. Hehner
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Richard Damon found a loophole in the original question.
I inserted (yes/no) to close the loophole.

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