Re: Flibble’s Leap: Why Behavioral Divergence Implies a Type Distinction in the Halting Problem

On 5/11/25 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 15:55:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 5/11/25 11:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 16:47:09 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

On 11/05/2025 16:34, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 16:25:14 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

For a question to be semantically incorrect, it takes more than just
you and your allies to be unhappy with it.

>
For a question to be semantically correct, it takes more than just
you and your allies to be happy with it.

>
Indeed. It has to have meaning. It does. That meaning has to be
understood by sufficiently intelligent people. It is.
>
You don't like the question. I get that. I don't know /why/ you don't
like it, because all your explanations to date have been complete
expletive deleted. For a Usenet article to be semantically correct, it
helps if your readers can understand what the <exp. del.> you're
talking about.
>
What I get from your stand is that you agree with olcott that a
'pathological' input halts... no, never halts... well, you can't
decide between you, but you're agreed that it's definitely decidable,
right?

>
Re-read the OP for my answer:

>
Which is full of errors as I have pointed out.

 Sorry mate but you have missed the boat as I have moved on: I am happy
with my final solution; I glanced over all your responses in this thread
and they are all invalid.

In other words, you are admtting to being happy to be in error.

 In summary:
* pathological input is undecidable but not for the reason given in the
extant halting problem proofs;
* pathological input should be removed from the set of programs that can
be analysed by a decider for further research in this area to be useful
rather than just a circle jerk.
 

But the pathological input *IS* a program (at least if the decider is), and thus a valid source of the input to a decider.
Your logic just fails when you take that fact into account. What you are trying to do is make a valid program not a valid program which you can not do without gutting the principle of programming.

/Flibble