Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 11:44:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vvqk4s$gldn$12@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me> <vvo71c$rlt$1@news.muc.de>
 <PlNTP.270466$lZjd.128570@fx05.ams4> <vvochv$15td$2@news.muc.de>
 <vvodn5$3na6l$3@dont-email.me>
 <1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 18:44:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef7faca461217fa132b1f53eef89d0be";
	logging-data="546231"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lAt/fqBroStgU6SFnXg/B"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HBW8VJTyDqdoF5caLuVpcFyp8Y4=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message

On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>>> OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper where
>>> this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd
>>> even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're
>>> ready to denigrate his work.
>>> Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for insinuations.
>>>
>> It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
>> that is wrongheaded.
>> (1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
>> termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
>> that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
>> opposite" code is unreachable.

> The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then does
> the opposite.
> 

HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
its actual input actually specifies.

int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,2) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 7
because that is not what its input specifies.

>> (2) It expects a self-contradictory (thus incorrect)
>> question to have a correct answer.
> Whether a program halts is not contradictory.
> 

Asking sum(3,2) about the sum of 5 + 7
is the same as asking HHH(DDD) about the
direct execution of DDD().

>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>> When the context of who is asked is understood to be an aspect of the
>> full meaning of the question then the question posed to Carol is
>> incorrect because both yes and no are the wrong answer.
> Yes, HHH cannot answer correctly.
> 

Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the
wrong answer is an incorrect polar question.
Copyright PL Olcott 2025.

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