Re: Two computer science professors agree with Flibble

On 2025-05-05 01:38:30 +0000, olcott said:

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 proving
that this form of the Halting Problem has an incoherent
specification.
 Computer Science professor Eric Hehner PhD agrees
in one of his many papers on the Halting Problem.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
 Here is another paper by another computer science
professor that most directly agrees with Flibble:

Even professors can say stupid things. It is best to avoid publishers
that publish articles were anyone says anything really stupid. With
conferences it does not matter because there the audience can spot
and point out the stupidity.
One should also be careful with scools that hire professors that say
stupid things.
--
Mikko