Re: The error of the halting problem

On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 4:53 PM, olcott wrote:

For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
The way that the halting problem is conventionally understood is that H
must correctly answer yes or no to an input that contradicts both
answers, thus H is being asked a question isomorphic to the Liar
Paradox: Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?

>
But it doesn't reduce to that, as the decider was fixed in code first, and then, by using that code, a question is constructed WITH A RIGHT ANSWER, that just isn't the answer that this decider happens to give.
>
You just don't seem to understand logic well enough to understand that not that subtitle difference.
>

>
In other words you are trying to get away with saying
that it is only random chance that H gets the wrong
answer not that the game is rigged against H.
>
>

 There is nothing "random" about it, if there was there would be a chance it could get it right.
 

Then why did you say it was random?
"just isn't the answer that this decider happens to give."
When H is asked a yes/no question where both answers are
contradicted by its input *IT IS A FREAKING RIGGED GAME*
*You seem to be a mindless automaton that is hard-wired to disagree*
Both professor Hehner and professor Stoddard said essentially
this same thing in much more words.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer