Re: Flibble’s Leap: Why Behavioral Divergence Implies a Type Distinction in the Halting Problem

On 11/05/2025 18:26, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:15:47 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 

On 11/05/2025 17:59, Mr Flibble wrote:

it is impossible to obtain a halting result

>
>
That sure looks like a concession that it's impossible to devise an
algorithm that will produce a halting result.
>
Well done. We got you there in the end.

 No.

Well, yyeess, actually.

The reason why it is impossible

Hold that thought. Never mind the reason for now. We can come to that another time.
"...it is impossible..."
Precisely.
QED^3.

to obtain a halting result for
pathological input is not the reason proposed by Turing (i.e. self-
referential diagonalization),

blah blah blah yeah yeah

it is impossible to obtain a halting result

So it's undecidable, then? Yeah, I spotted that too.

for pathological input because the self-referential conflation of decider
and input is a category error that prevents us from performing
diagonalization.

more blah blah blah yeah yeah
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within