Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

On 5/16/2025 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
 

On Fri, 16 May 2025 00:59:02 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>

On Thu, 15 May 2025 13:23:43 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>

the truth is pathlogical input is undecidable:

>
No input[1] is undecidable.

>
Eh?  Partial deciders are a thing.

>
Yes.  That does not alter the fact that no input is undecidable.

>
Pathological input is undecidable as pathological input is an "impossible
program" [Strachey 1965].

 The most likely explanation is that you don't know what decidable means.
Either that or you just like posting remarks for the sake of it.
 

Sure and these two PhD computer science professors
would also have no idea what the terms of their are mean:
Problems with the Halting Problem
Eric C.R. Hehner
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Halting misconceived?
Bill Stoddart
August 25, 2017
https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer