Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

On 2025-05-15 13:01:25 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

On Thu, 15 May 2025 07:27:03 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 5/15/25 2:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Peter is right to say that the halting problem as defined is flawed: he
agrees with me that there is category error at the heart of the problem
definition whereby the decider is conflated with the program being
analysed in an ill-formed self-referential dependency that manifests in
his simulating halt decider as "aborted" infinite recursion.
 Peter however is wrong to say that aborting his infinite recursion is
equivalant to a halting state of non-halting: the truth is pathlogical
input is undecidable: that part Turing et al got right.
 /Flibble

 There is nothing wrong with the Halting Problem as actually defined.
 There is a lot wrong with how he interprests the Problem, because he
doesn't understand the meaning of the basic terms.

 False.

If it were false you could post corrections to commets that identify
a wrong interpretation of the problem or a failure to understand the
meaning of some basic term.
--
Mikko