Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/5/2025 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 10:44 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/5/2025 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/5/2025 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/5/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 9:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/5/2025 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote:

>
Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm exists that performs the following mapping:
>
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
>
>
>

DO COMPUTE THAT THE INPUT IS NON-HALTING
IFF (if and only if) the mapping FROM INPUTS
IS COMPUTED.

>
i.e. it is found to map something other than the above function which is a contradiction.
>

>
The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE.
You make no attempt to show how my claim
THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE IS INCORRECT
you simply take that same quote from a computer
science textbook as the infallible word-of-God.

>
All you are doing is showing that you don't understand proof by contradiction,

>
Not at all.

>
>
Yes.
>
The mapping is well defined.

>
You don't even know that "well defined" means
that all of the steps have been specified.

>
A mapping doesn't *have* steps. It's simply an association between an input domain and an output domain.
>

>
Computing the mapping does > have 100% totally specific steps

>
>
So you're assuming an algorithm exists that can compute the below mapping.
>

>
No the mapping below is stupidly wrong.

>
Not at all.
>
I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly.
>

 What are ALL of the steps to determine that for HHH(DD) ?

In other words, you're assuming that the halting function is computable.
We then reach a contradiction, proving that assumption to be false, as Linz and others have proved and you have *explicitly* agreed is correct.