Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two computer science professors agree with Flibble
Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 22:10:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <vv9a6f$3hjhu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 May 2025 05:10:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a6320ec149f030cd98ca15e4d2d5e5f";
	logging-data="3722814"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tqRqwzJ72ANZkj6YsB9Rw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lp8BedZM5dYxtOsvENumgEj2V1g=
In-Reply-To: <vv99l9$3h92p$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250504-4, 5/4/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

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.

The linguistic context of WHO IS ASKED is an essential
part of the question.

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.

> The answer given by the algorithm doing the deciding for the algorithm 
> described by the input is the incorrect one.


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