Re: The error of the halting problem

On 6/3/24 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:

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."

But the answer the decider gives isn't random, because algorithms are not random.

 When H is asked a yes/no question where both answers are
contradicted by its input *IT IS A FREAKING RIGGED GAME*

But both answers aren't wrong. Remember, the question is built to make a SPECIFIC decider wrong, and by its algorithm, it will give a SPECIFIC answer to each SPECIFIC question.
The trick discovered was a way to build a question from the decider itself, that it will get wrong.

 *You seem to be a mindless automaton that is hard-wired to disagree*

Not at all. I know what I am talking about. I am not so sure about you.
The problem seems to be a fundamental gap in your basic knowledge about everything you talk about.

 Both professor Hehner and professor Stoddard said essentially
this same thing in much more words.
 

But they didn't seem to understand that a GIVEN decider has a FIXED answer for every possible question, and thus their ideas were just wrong.