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

On 5/11/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 6:05 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

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

On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:15:47 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

On 11/05/2025 17:59, Mr Flibble wrote:

it is impossible to obtain a halting result

>
>
That sure looks like a concession that it's impossible to devise an
algorithm that will produce a halting result.
>
Well done. We got you there in the end.

>
No. The reason why it is impossible to obtain a halting result for
pathological input is not the reason proposed by Turing (i.e. self-
referential diagonalization), it is impossible to obtain a halting result
for pathological input because the self-referential conflation of decider
and input is a category error that prevents us from performing
diagonalization.

>
Is it possible to determine whether a given input is "pathological" or not?
>

To usefully advance research in this area pathological input needs to be
excluded from the set of programs that can be analysed by a decider.

>
Can this exclusion be performed reliably and consistently?
>

>
That is a good question. The answer is definitely
yes. When HHH emulates DDD it only needs to see
that DDD is calling itself with no conditional branch
instructions inbetween.
>
Whether a function computed by a Turing machine can
do this is a different question.
>

>
So, try to do it.
>

>
No need to. DDD emulated by HHH according to the
rules of the computational language that DD is
encoded within already proves that the HP
"impossible" input specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.

>
So, you are admitting you can't.
>

 I never admitted any such thing.
That I do not affirm that X is true
is not at all me affirming that X is false.

Sure you did, you just don't understand that you did.
YOU have the burden of proof for your positive afferemations.
YOU have claimed you setup to be "equvalent" to Turing Machines.
If is it, that means that if you can show your setup can do it, then so can a Turing Machie,
Then you admit that your "proof" doesn't prove that a Turing Machine can also do it, so obviously you are admitting that you setup isn't actually a Turing Equivalent.
Your problem is from your previous stipulations, you claim s proved to be a lie, as you have stipulated:
1) The Input is, and only is, the code for the C Function DDD
2) That the decider HHH must be a pure function.
3) That the decider must correctly emulate the input per the definitoion of the computational languge they are expressed in (C or x86)
But, to do 3, the decider must have available the code of the thing it is to correctly emulate (becuase of 2, it can't look elsewhere) and becuase of 1, it isn't in the input
Thus Your HHH can't exist by your rules.
Also, if you fix the problem with stipulation 1 and include the code, then to do 3, it MUST emulate to the end of the function, and all your HHHs that you imagine that give an answer don't do that (and an HHH that fails to answer fails to meet your requirements to be a decider).

 It is me trying to get you to focus on one
single point and not be scatterbrained all
over the place.

No, it is you trying to hide your lies behind equivocation,

 Prior to my work the answer for the halt status
of the HP's impossible input was: NO ONE KNOWS.
After my work the halt status becomes NON-HALTING.
This by itself is much more than anyone else
has ever accomplished with the HP.
 

WRONG.
The Halt Status of any particular D is fully know, it is the opposite of the ONE answer that the particular H(D) returned.
Since, H, to be a decider, MUST return an answer, we can compute that answer, and thus compute the correct answer.
On you don't know, because you are stupid, and you confuse yourself by not knowing what you are talking about.
The problem ALWAYS looks at one decider and one input at a time. Trying to hide behind the smoke screen of lies of infinite sets that aren't actually there is your stratagy, but it fails when your strawmen go up in flame when the come in contact with that Lake of Fire that burns up the lies.
Your logic is just based on equivocating to lie. Sometimes you have a definite HHH, but your DDD isn't a program as you don't complete it, and then you imagine it being a different thing then what you setup actually makes it (it calls a HHH other than the one that you have)
Other times you try to say you have an infinite set up programs, but you can't write an infinte set of programs and put it into you computer. You can imagine an infintie set of computers, but each one has only one program in it, and each of those is wrong.
Your logic is based on the LIE that you get to change the definitions of the problem, which just show that you are nothing but a liar, as that is fundamentally false.