Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

My only aim is to show that the conventional halting
problem proof is wrong.

But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong when you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that what the proof proves is correct?
On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
 > A halt decider cannot exist
On 4/28/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 4/28/2025 11:54 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> And the halting function below is not a computable function:
 >>
 >
 > It is NEVER a computable function
 >
 >> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
 >>
 >> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
 >>
 >> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
 >> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
 > When we define the HP as having H return a value
 > corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
 > and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
 > value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
 > in to a problem having no solution.
On 6/21/2024 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
 > the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H
 > that correctly reports the halt status of input D that is
 > defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H reports.
 > Of course this is impossible.
On 7/4/2023 12:57 AM, olcott wrote:
 > If you frame the problem in that a halt decider must divide up finite
 > strings pairs into those that halt when directly executed and those that
 > do not, then no single program can do this.
On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Strawman.  The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, but the
 >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y halts when
 >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
 >>
 >
 > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed
On 5/13/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:
 > There is no time that we are ever going to directly
 > encode omniscience into a computer program. The
 > screwy idea of a universal halt decider that is
 > literally ALL KNOWING is just a screwy idea.