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

On 5/11/25 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 16:25:14 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 

For a question to be semantically incorrect, it takes more than just you
and your allies to be unhappy with it.

 For a question to be semantically correct, it takes more than just you and
your allies to be happy with it.
 Your turn, mate.
 /Flibble

But the question has a clear and precise meaning, and a clear and precise correct answer.
Programs have precise behavior, and thus it is semantically correct to ask about that behavior.
Of course, to get that answer, you need to define the machine that question will be asked about, and for the proof program, that means you need to first select which specific decider you want to claim is correct.
Having defined that H, we can build the D by the defined formula, and that formula says it will behave differently than what H(<D>) says it will do. The answer that H(<D>) gives was fixed by the definition of H (as its answer to EVERY possible input was) and thus the error was not "caused" by something in <D>, the pathological formula just found one of the errors in the processing of its input.
Thus, there is no semantic error.
If you want to disagree, you need to specify where you see the error.