Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT

On 4/17/25 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/16/2025 5:24 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:

I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and have
thus solved the halting problem

>
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank. Well done!
>
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your mummy's still out at the shops.
>

 Flibble and I did not solve the Halting Problem
instead Flibble, computer science professor
Eric Hehner PhD, and I agree that the halting
problem is a "category error" (Flibble's words).
  (see page 2 and references)
 Yes, then we three agree including PhD computer science professor
Eric Hehner PhD (see page 2 and references). publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 *Here is one of his best papers*
Objective and Subjective Specifications
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
The analysis of the above is the key insight into his whole paper.
 

And all of your problems is that you are using a Strawman.
The Halting question is: "Does the Program and input described by the input Halt?"
That is an OBJECTIVE question, which is always well defined.
Your question, "What can a decider return to be correct?" isn't a valid question in conputation theory, as BY ITS DEFINITION, a given program, thed "decider" will ALWAYS return its given answer for any question, so trying to change it to get that answer means it isn't what it was, and thus, if the input was "pathologically" built on it, you change the input, and invalidate the answer you tried to answer.
Your question goes more to the "meta-question" of the problem, can such a program, to solve the halting question, exist, that is always right.
Your analysis shows that it can not be, and thus doesn't refute the proof you are talking about, but confirms it.
Your decider, which you talk about changing so it will be correct, and the effective question you are asking, has become a category error for computation theory, as you are no longer looking at the behavior of PROGRAMS, but of program templates, and in fact, just one carefully crafted input, which ends up no longer being a "Program" per computation theory, but just a template that becomes a program when completed.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you fundamentally don't understand what you are talking about.
The specification of the ACTUAL question is objective, as by the rules of computation theory, all programs are deterministic, and there behavior is defined by what that program actually is.
YOUR question is subjective, and not valid by the rules of conputation theory, as it is talking about things that are not programs, and if we try to expand the definition of programs to try to include them, we lose almost all of the useful properties of programs.
So, all you are doing is showing that your concept of POOP is only good for the toilet,