Two computer science professors agree with Flibble

On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
 

On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:

The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there is no
function at all, just a category error.

>
It's a point of view.

 It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft
that it's not someone's point of view.  The technical-sounding waffle
about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems.  For example, whether or not a context-free
grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
 

Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect proving
that this form of the Halting Problem has an incoherent
specification.
Computer Science professor Eric Hehner PhD agrees
in one of his many papers on the Halting Problem.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
Here is another paper by another computer science
professor that most directly agrees with Flibble:
Halting misconceived? --- Bill Stoddart --- August 25, 2017
https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer