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

On 5/11/25 5:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 4:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 15:55:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 5/11/25 11:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 16:47:09 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

On 11/05/2025 16:34, 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.

>
Indeed. It has to have meaning. It does. That meaning has to be
understood by sufficiently intelligent people. It is.
>
You don't like the question. I get that. I don't know /why/ you don't
like it, because all your explanations to date have been complete
expletive deleted. For a Usenet article to be semantically correct, it
helps if your readers can understand what the <exp. del.> you're
talking about.
>
What I get from your stand is that you agree with olcott that a
'pathological' input halts... no, never halts... well, you can't
decide between you, but you're agreed that it's definitely decidable,
right?

>
Re-read the OP for my answer:

>
Which is full of errors as I have pointed out.

>
Sorry mate but you have missed the boat as I have moved on: I am happy
with my final solution; I glanced over all your responses in this thread
and they are all invalid.
>
In summary:
* pathological input is undecidable but not for the reason given in the
extant halting problem proofs;
* pathological input should be removed from the set of programs that can
be analysed by a decider for further research in this area to be useful
rather than just a circle jerk.
>
/Flibble

 I use similar reasoning for my rebuttal of
the Tarski Undefinability theorem.
 The formalized version of "This sentence is not true"
is rejected as not having any truth value.
 

WHich is just a false comparison, proving your stupidity.
The program the input represets, D/DD/DDD has a definite behavior when run as long as it includes the decider it calls, and that decider is a program.
Thus, if your system is setup right, the quesiton, does the program this input represents halt? HAS a definite answer, and you analogiy is proved to ve a lie, and your self stupid to make it REPEATEDLY after having the error pointed out repeatedly.