Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/12/2025 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 10:14 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 03:48, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his knowledge and use of C.  Yes, it's awful.  He
knows very little C and the code is crap, but that/is/  a
straw man -- it's the simplest part of his argument to
fix.

>

>
Although it was an attempt to motivate him to improve the code, it has become blindingly obvious that he's not interested, which is precisely why I am going to stop bothering.
>

>
Do you really think that nit picky details

>
Are important? Yes.
>
Are important to you? No.
>

can refute the gist of what I am saying

>
No. If you won't listen to Alan Turing's refutation, you're sure as hell not going to listen to mine.
>

 All of the conventional halting problem proofs
have several fatal flaws. That you simply ignore
my proof of these fatal flaws is not actually
any rebuttal.
 Every conventional halting problem proof has as
its most fundamental basis

The assumption that an algorithm exists that computes the following mapping:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly

an input that can
actually do the opposite of whatever their
termination analyzer reports.

Which is not an assumption, but follows from a series of truth preserving operations from the above assumption.
This is a contradiction, therefore the assumption that an algorithm exists that computes the above mapping is proven false, as show by Linz and others and as you have *explicitly* agreed with.
On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Strawman.  The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, but the
 >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y halts when
 >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
 >>
 >
 > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed