• Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V20

    From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 20 18:52:00 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 11/20/2021 6:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2021-11-20 15:12, olcott wrote:
    On 11/20/2021 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 11/20/21 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 11/20/2021 3:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 11/20/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 11/20/2021 10:47 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

    On 11/20/2021 4:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
    Subject:
    Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V20 [ Ben
    Bacarisse ]
    I would appreciate it if you would not use my name in
    connection with
    your "work".  Thank you.

    I have finally made it clear that when the input to H(P,P) never >>>>>>>> halts
    the fact that (P) halts does not contradict this.

    I would appreciate it if you would not use my name in connection >>>>>>> with
    your "work".  I can't make you, but I trust you have some sense of >>>>>>> propriety.  Thank you.


    Not in this case. You have only unfairly evaluated my work.
    Now is your chance for an accurate review.


    No, your 'proof' is still a lie based on using the wrong
    definitions of words.

    The computation that is the input to H(P,P) WILL halt if H(P,P)
    returns the value 0 as long as P is the required computation based
    on that H.

    FAIL.

    Everyone here defines the domain of function H to contain elements
    that are only vague ideas.


    LIE.


    The Domain of a proper Halt decider is PRECISELY defined.

    The domain of function H must actually be a set of elements that
    each specify a sequence of configurations.

    And they do.


    Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
    Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
    configurations.
    H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E
    reaches its final state.


    Except that for the Computation P(P)

    This is the exact vague idea that cannot possibly exist in the domain
    of H.

    The sequence of configurations specified by the x86 machine language
    of P is in the domain of H.

    Some vague idea about what P(P) is supposed to do cannot possibly be
    in the domain of H.

    Which 'vague idea'?

    A halt decider doesn't decide what P(P) is "supposed" to do. It decides
    what it actually *does* do when run directly from main. There's nothing remotely vague about that.

    I think you are confusing the term 'domain' with the term 'scope'. When
    you call P(P) from within H it is within the scope of H. when you
    execute it directly from main it is not within the scope of H. Scope and domain are entirely different things.

    And a halt decider describes the behaviour of independent computations,
    not of functions called from within the scope of the decider.

    André


    How do you tell a mathematical function that it is not allowed to base
    its halt status decision on the sequence of configurations specified by
    (P, I) and instead must base its halt status decision on P(I) [when run independently] ???


    --
    Copyright 2021 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)