Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

On 2025-05-15 15:33:01 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

On Thu, 15 May 2025 10:13:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
 

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.

 Sipser is wrong: he is disagreeing with Turing et al that pathological
input is undecidable.

Which sentence of Sipser contradicts which sentence of Turing?
Why do you think that Sipser is wrong and not Turing?
--
Mikko