Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/2025 3:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote:>>>

I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that:
>
* What the halting problem proofs prove is correct

>
I said it is correct under a false assumption dipshit.
>
Are you too stupid to know that correct under a false
assumption means incorrect?

>
And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that performs the following mapping:
>

>
That is not what I said you damned (condemned to actual Hell) liar.
>

 Try again:
  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.
 

*This D cannot possibly be defined*
This has always been a huge mistake of the halting problem
proofs. When the problem calls for *an input* we must have
an actual input.
int main()
{
   DDD(); // IS NOT ANY INPUT TO THE HHH(DDD) THAT THIS DDD CALLS
}
It works this same way on every conventional HP proof.

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.
 

That would be the same as determining whether the Liar
Paradox is true or false thus an incorrect question
like this incorrect question: "What time is it (true or false)?"

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.
 

Because it requires a termination analyzer to report on
the behavior of its caller.
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
All deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUT
and their caller IS NOT THEIR INPUT.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer