• Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Thu May 5 13:58:00 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

    On 5/5/2022 11:50 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
    word games.

    The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
    other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
    due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
    from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
    in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
    proof [Wikipedia, 2022].

    The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that
    which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the
    decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and
    thus invalid.

    /Flibble


    Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.

    For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
    "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
    source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of what
    f predicts g will do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Ben on Thu May 5 20:59:51 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

    On 5/5/2022 8:43 PM, Ben wrote:
    olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

    On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote:
    olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

    Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same
    self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.

    For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
    "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
    source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
    what f predicts g will do.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
    So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How
    long has it taken you to get to this point?

    H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct
    H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct

    You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the
    mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect.

    Any conclusion I can form this is unkind. You are either dishonest and
    are intentionally misrepresenting what other people write, or you are so
    lost that even after 18 years you don't know what that halting problem
    is.


    I am not trying to be unkind. When people happily disagree with verified
    facts I construe that as playing head games for sadistic pleasure. Those
    people really need a strong (at least metaphorical) slap in the face.

    It is a proven fact that H(P,P) and H1(P,P) do correctly compute the
    mapping from their input parameters to the halt status specified by
    these inputs.

    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)