Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways

On 6/8/2024 1:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 14:09:54 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/7/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 15:18:21 +0000, olcott said:

>
*Here is that problem statement*
Prove that sum(3,4) is incorrect on the basis that
sum(3,4) cannot and does not provide the sum of 5 + 6.

>
That problem statement does not restrict what another
problem statement may specify.
>

>
It is an analogy.

 It is not analogous to anything relevant, nor was it presented
as a relevant or other analog.
 

All halt deciders are only allowed to report on the actual
behavior of their actual input.

 That does not restrict what a problem statement may specify.
 

I have proven right here that the actual behavior of the actual
input is that it remains stuck in recursive simulation.

 That does not restrict what a problem statement may specify.
 

*It does restrict what a correct problem statement can specify*
Objective and Subjective Specifications
Eric C.R. Hehner
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
Let's ask Carol. If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no” is the correct answer for her, so “yes” is incorrect. If she says “no”, she's saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”, which is her answer. We are assuming for this and all subsequent questions that the only acceptable answers are “yes” and “no”, and in this case, both answers are incorrect. Carol cannot answer the question correctly. Now let's ask Dave. He says “no”, and he is correct because Carol cannot correctly answer “no”. So (6) is subjective because it is a consistent, satisfiable specification for some agent (anyone other than Carol), and *an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification for some agent* (Carol).
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer