Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/11/25 7:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 10:34:18 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2025 20:07:50 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2025 18:48:12 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer science
would spend years working on so few lines of code.

>
>

I created a whole x86utm operating system.
It correctly determines that the halting problem's otherwise
"impossible" input is actually non halting.

>

You've spent over 20 years on this matter.  Compare this with Alan
Turing's solution of the Entscheidungsproblem.  He published this in
1936 when he was just 24 years old.

>

Turing didn't solve anything: what he published contained a mistake:
the category (type) error that I have described previously in this
forum.

>

What arrogant self-important ignorance!  Turing indeed solved the
Entscheidungsproblem.  His procedure has been verified by hundreds of
thousands of mathematicians over the last century, and none of them
have found flaws in it.

>

Not at all: I have simply found a flaw that has been overlooked all
this time.  Peter effectively found the same flaw but came at it from a
different angle.

>
That's laughable.  You're just a confused and deluded narcissistic
crank.
If you really believe you've found a flaw in Turing's paper, try writing
it up properly (something which is beyond you) and submit it for
publication to a reputable peer-reviewed mathematical journal.  I'd be
surprised if you even got a reply.

 Such invective diatribes do you no favours, mate. The problem here is you
cannot handle the fact that Flibble and Olcott have refuted the Halting
Problem proofs, showing how they all contain the same flaw which Turing
and all who followed him overlooked.
 

It is overwhelmingly likely that your lack of mathematical training
has led you to delude yourself about finding an error.  The same
applies to Peter Olcott.

>

Nope, I have formally defined the error that doesn't contradict Peter's
work.

>
You don't even understand what "formally" means.

 Sure I do. I can formally define it again for you if you like? Here is the
formal definition:
 What constitutes halting problem pathological input:
 Input that would cause infinite recursion when using a decider of the
simulating kind.

So, what is a decider of a simulationg kind?
If it is a decider, it can't do an infinte emulation.
If it is a correct simulator, then it can't be a decider as it doesn't always anser.
If it is a decider when directly called, and a simulator when called by D, then it isn't a program, as it doesn't have a uniquly defined algorithm.
Sorry, your term of "a decider of the simulating kind" needs a correct formal definition to resolve which way your arguement is just wrong.

 Such input forms a category error which results in the halting problem
being ill-formed as currently defined.

No, they show that YOU are using a misdefined term, and is the category error.
Note, the actual definition of the canonical pathological input is a description of a program that uses a copy of the decider that it is to make wrong on two copies of its input to get its decision and then does the opposite of that behavior, and said program is given to the decider with its representaiton, with an input of also its representation.
A second version (which takes a bit more work to show is valid) is a program that generates an input that represents itself (which can be show to be doable, but takes more work) and then uses a copy of a halt decider for programs without inputs, and then does the opposite of that behavior.
The first version has absolutely no "references" in the input to anything, just a copy of the decider it is to refute, which is a valid step.
The second version sort of has a reference, in the ability to crreate its own representation, but it can be proven that you can build such a machine for any payload algorithm you want.
Since you started with a strawman, your argument is just based on a fallacy.

 /Flibble