Re: The error of the halting problem

Am Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:14:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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:

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.

Then explain exactly how this is not deception:
"just isn't the answer that this decider happens to give."

It is also not deception. It is just constructed to give the opposite
answer.

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

Wrong analogy. The decider has no right to be correct.

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.

You can't get away with that head game by pretending to not understand
what infinite an set of H/D pairs is.

What head game? What is the infinite set? We only need one H.

I really hope you don't condemn yourself to Hell over this. But I was
just having fun being a Troll... Is Hell worth that?
I myself would not take the chance.

--
joes