Re: Two computer science professors agree with Flibble

On 2025-05-05 03:10:06 +0000, olcott said:

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,
Even though D halts or fails to halt.

False. If H does not return the correct value then a value that
H does not return is correct.
--
Mikko