Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

On 5/15/2025 1:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Peter is right to say that the halting problem as defined is flawed: he
agrees with me that there is category error at the heart of the problem
definition whereby the decider is conflated with the program being
analysed in an ill-formed self-referential dependency that manifests in
his simulating halt decider as "aborted" infinite recursion.
 Peter however is wrong to say that aborting his infinite recursion is
equivalant to a halting state of non-halting: the truth is pathlogical
input is undecidable: that part Turing et al got right.
 /Flibble

Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
by Michael Sipser (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars    568 ratings
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
HHH does correctly reject DDD and DD according
to the exact meaning of the above words. It also
seems to me that those words are a truism.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer