Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 23:55:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 06:55:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d3877b25e07ae675aebb853b858fd37"; logging-data="2307610"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//gFyhFNDY8rFPDApDzCOj" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:hzFa7xHmXuHgMv4IuFFiBWbNhSc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250505-6, 5/5/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 3529 On 5/5/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 05/05/2025 20:38, olcott wrote: >> On 5/5/2025 2:23 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 05/05/2025 20:20, olcott wrote: >>>> Is "halts" the correct answer for H to return?  NO >>>> Is "does not halt" the correct answer for H to return?  NO >>>> Both Boolean return values are the wrong answer >>> >>> Or to put it another way, the answer is undecidable, QED. >>> >>> See? You got there in the end. >>> >> >> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" > > 20:45GMT, give or take. > >> is also "undecidable" because it is not a proposition >> having a truth value. > > No, it's computable and therefore decidable. Your computer is perfectly > capable of displaying its interpretation of the time. > >> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is untrue." >> is also "undecidable" because it is not a semantically sound >> proposition having a truth value. > > But we know that it halts at the full stop. > >> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? > > You have, I see, learned that not all yes/no questions are decidable. > Well done! You're coming along nicely. > >> Both Yes and No are the wrong answer proving that >> the question is incorrect when the context of who >> is asked is understood to be a linguistically required >> aspect of the full meaning of the question. > > The question is grammatically and syntactically unremarkable. I see no > grounds for claiming that it's 'incorrect'. It's just undecidable. > > You appear to be trying to overturn the Halting Problem by claiming that > Turing somehow cheated. You're entitled to hold that opinion, but it's > not one that will gain any traction with peer reviewers when you try to > publish. > *EVERYONE IGNORES THIS* It is very simple the mapping from inputs to outputs must have a well defined sequence of steps. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer