Re: Two computer science professors agree with Flibble

On 5/4/25 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

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".

Excpet that it isn't isomoprhic to the Liar's Paradox, so your premise isn't 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.

But that isn't the definition of the PROBLEM, but the definition of one way to construct a specific input for a decider, that was already defined.
It isn't "both" answers that decider can give, it is the one answer that the decider DOES give.
At the construction template level, where we say for any decider, you have that "both", but we aren't deciding on the template as an input (as that isn't a "progtam") but only on the actual program created by instancing the template on a given decider, to show that one decider is not correct for all inputs.

 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

And he also doesn't understand that the decider the input was made needs to be a DEFINED program first, and thus the argument fails.

 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