Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/10/25 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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

On Sat, 10 May 2025 18:48:12 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer science
would spend years working on so few lines of code.

>
>

I created a whole x86utm operating system.
It correctly determines that the halting problem's otherwise
"impossible" input is actually non halting.

>

You've spent over 20 years on this matter.  Compare this with Alan
Turing's solution of the Entscheidungsproblem.  He published this in
1936 when he was just 24 years old.

>

Turing didn't solve anything: what he published contained a mistake: the
category (type) error that I have described previously in this forum.

>
OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper where
this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd even
looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're ready to
denigrate his work.
>
Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for insinuations.
>

/Flibble

>

 It is the whole gist of the entire idea of
the halting problem proof that is wrongheaded.

 (1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an
input to a termination analyzer can actually
do this opposite of whatever value that this
analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this
"do the opposite" code is unreachable.

But it can.

 (2) It expects a self-contradictory (thus incorrect)
question to have a correct answer.

But it isn't. WHen H and D are actual programs, as required, then the behavior of D is fully defined and determined.

 Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

Which shows you don't know the difference between a willful being and a fully determined program.
I guess you have lost your ability to be willful, and that explains why you are stuck in your loop.

 When the context of who is asked is understood
to be an aspect of the full meaning of the question
then the question posed to Carol is incorrect because
both yes and no are the wrong answer.

But the question has nothing to do with who it is asked to.

 Credit to Richard Damon for finding the loophole
in the original question:
 Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
With the original version Carol can shake her head
to indicate "no" without actually saying "no".
 

No, the real problem is a question about the future behavior of a willful being is just not a valid objective question. It doesn't HAVE a correct answer until the event happens, thus it isn't a question of fact, but of true guessing.