Re: Halting Problem: How my refutation differs to Peter Olcott's

On 13/05/2025 11:13, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-12 15:51:21 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/12/2025 9:38 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 15:32, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-11 11:52:05 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

On Sun, 11 May 2025 11:49:50 +0000, joes wrote:

>
<snip>
>

No. HHH has a string representation, like every program.

>
No. Conflating a program with a string representation of the same program
in the manner of a self-referential dependency is a category (type) error.

>
There are several meanings for the word "program" but a common one is a
string that specifies what shall happen when the program is executed.
One possible string representation of that string is the string itself.
>

>
A better name is computational unit.

>
That's a terrible name. But okay, if you think it's better, who is anyone here to stop you using it? Just don't expect me to.
>

>
What other name encompasses
(a) subroutines
(b) programs
(c) integrated systems comprised of many programs

 Software

:-)
I think he may be reaching for 'module', which is used at quite a few levels, but in truth it's a needless distraction. The term 'Turing Machine' (or 'TM tape' if you need that distinction) is more than adequate in the overarching context of this discussion.
--
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