Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

On 2025-05-15 15:13:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/15/2025 1:27 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

 Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
by Michael Sipser (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars    568 ratings
 https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X 

Nothing on that page supports any of your claims in any way.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Nothing above supports any of your claims.

HHH does correctly reject DDD and DD according
to the exact meaning of the above words. It also
seems to me that those words are a truism.

HHH does indeed reject DDD and DD but the use of the word "correctly"
is not justified. HHH does not correctly determine that its
simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
--
Mikko