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)

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)