Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways

On 6/4/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-03 18:14:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/3/2024 9:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-03 12:20:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>

PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been posted here.
PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in various traces.
i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged both these
results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>
You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>
That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!

>
He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result for
H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone continues to
discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim.
>

>
Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
accept or reject state.

>
That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
If the computed mapping differs from the specified one the
decider does not solve the problem.

>
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(2,3) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6.

>
That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
If the mapping computed by sum differs from the specified one
the program sum does not solve the problem.
>

>
On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting,
 > which IS about the direct execution of DD
>
Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must
compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH).

>
But strings don't HAVE "Behavior", they only represent things that do.
>

 Turing Machine descriptions specify behavior to UTMs.

Right, because that description represents the Turing Machine whose behavior the UTM will recreate.
Remember, the DEFINITION of a UTM is that it exactly reproduces the results of the machine that the description describes.
So, by that logic, your HH needs to answer about the behavior that a UTM would bget when it simulates that input, which will still be paired to the HH that it was paired with (and not changed to be the UTM).
That WILL be exactly the behavior of the direct execution of the input, the thing you try to claim it can not be, but it is shown that you are just a liar.

 

And, for a Halt decider, that thing they represent is the program, whose direct execution specifies the proper behavior of the input.
>
The DEFINITON IS NOT  "as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH", as deciders, by their definiton, are trying to compute the mapping of their input according to a defined function, which is a function of just that input. Since that function doesn't know which "H' is going to try to decide on it, it can't change its answer based on which H we ask.
>
Proper Deciders can not be asked "Subjective" questions, unless we SPECIFICALLY define the mapping to include the decider as one of the inputs, and at that point, the question actually ceases to be subjective, as it becomes, what should THAT H say about this input, which is back to an objective agian (since machines are deterministic, so the definition of H tells us what H will answer to that question).
>

>
When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the
*HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY*

>
Nope, YOU are wrong, because you
>

>
When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no
an answer that H provides then the counter-example input
is precisely isomorphic to the question:
Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false?
Thus that question and the HP question are both incorrect
because both yes and no are the wrong answer.

>
Nope, Just shows how small your mind is.
>
Proven elsewhere.,
>

>
The theory of computation may be ignorant of the details of
how the context of who is asked a question changes the meaning
of this question, none-the-less this cannot be ignored.
It is and remains incorrect for the theory of computation
to ignore this.
>

>
But the question it asks is an OBJECTIVE question that doesn't depend on who it is asked of.
>

 When H is asked about the behavior of a Machine that is programmed
to do the opposite of whatever it says then the context that it is H
that is being asked is an inherent aspect of the meaning of this
question and cannot be correctly ignored.
 The theory of computation people are ignorant of how linguistic
context change the meaning of expressions REALLY IS NO EXCUSE.
 

It is your own fault for trying to rephrase it incorrectly into a subjective version.
>
Thus, you statment is just a deceitful lie.

 You may have to go to Hell for calling me a liar when you know
that I believe what I say because this makes you a liar. I say
this for your own safety.