Re: Two computer science professors agree with Flibble

On 5/4/2025 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>

On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:

The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there is no
function at all, just a category error.

>
It's a point of view.

>
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft
that it's not someone's point of view.  The technical-sounding waffle
about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems.  For example, whether or not a context-free
grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
>

>
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
>
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect

>
False.  One value is correct and one is incorrect.
>

 Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,

Category error.  Algorithms do one thing and one thing only.  And the algorithm that is the fixed code of the function H and everything it calls gives the wrong answer, and the opposing answer is the right answer.