Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

On 2025-05-16 15:34:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2025 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

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?

 A simulating halt decider (SHD) (as defined above)
proves that there cannot be any input that actually
does the opposite of whatever value that its SHD
returns.
 int main()
{
   DDD(); // The HHH called by DDD() cannot report on its caller.
}

It does not matter what it proves unless you either post the proof
or post a proof that it proves what you claim it proves.
--
Mikko