Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

On Fri, 16 May 2025 00:59:02 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
 

On Thu, 15 May 2025 13:23:43 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
 

the truth is pathlogical input is undecidable:

 
No input[1] is undecidable.

>
Eh?  Partial deciders are a thing.

 
Yes.  That does not alter the fact that no input is undecidable.

>
Pathological input is undecidable as pathological input is an "impossible
program" [Strachey 1965].

The most likely explanation is that you don't know what decidable means.
Either that or you just like posting remarks for the sake of it.

--
Ben.