Re: Unpartial Halt Deciders

Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:

On 4/19/25 8:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

[ .... ]

Ah, the fundamental mistake you have been making all this time, Damon! The
self-referencial category error doesn't magically disappear by providing
source code rather than a run-time function address to the decider; you
are simply transforming the same input without affecting the result.

/Flibble

And WHAT is the category error?  You stil can't show the difference in
CATEGORY between what is allowed and what isn't, and in fact, you can't
even precisely define what is and isn't allowed.

Now, you also run into the issue that the "Olcott System" begins with an
actual category error as we do not have the required two seperate
programs of the "Decider" and the "Program to be decided on" given via
representation as the input, as what you want to call that program to be
decided isn't one without including the code of the decider it is using,
and when you do include it, the arguments about no version of the
decider being able to succeed is improper as it must always be that
exact program that we started with, and thus it just FAILS to do a
correct simulation, while a correct simulation of this exact input
(which includes the ORIGINAL decider) will halt.

That's a single sentence with 124 words in it.  It doesn't flow.  It's
meaning is obscured by its length.  At least it isn't written in German,
where it would probably end up with a string of around ten verbs.  ;-)

Sorry, YOU are the one stuck with the fundamental mistake, or is it a
funny mental mistake because you don't understand what you are talking
about.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).