Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller

On 6/3/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/3/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:

>
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
>

>
Yes there is no algorithm that does that

 Excellent!
 Let The Record Show
 That Peter Olcott
 Has *EXPLICITLY* admitted
 That no algorithm H exists that meets the above requirements, which is precisely the theorem that the halting problem proofs prove.

In the exact same way that there is no set of all set
that contain themselves. ZFC did not solve Russell's
Paradox as much as it showed that Russell's Paradox
was anchored in an incoherent foundation, now called
naive set theory.
By correcting a similar error in the the Halting
Problem the above requirements will be called the
naive halting problem.
It is not the job of a termination analyzer to report
on the behavior of its caller. Instead it must report
on the actual behavior actually specified by its inputs.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer