Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

On 16/05/2025 00:59, 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.
 

that part Turing et al got right.

>
Turing never said that there are undecidable inputs[2].
>
Maybe "truth", "pathological", "input" and "undecidable" have special
Flibble meanings.  I'm willing to accept that "the" and "is" have the
usual semantics.
>
[1] By input I mean an instance of the halting problem -- a string of
     symbols representing (a) an encoded TM (a number is Turing's paper)
     and (b) the initial tape contents.
>
[2] In the original paper, he never uses the words "input" or
     "decidable".  Instead, he uses other words, but nowhere is there any
     remark that is even close to meaning what you say.

>
False.

Not an argument one can counter.  Well done!

>
I'll take a crack at it, if I may.
>
True.
>
That is: In the original paper, he never uses the words "input" or
"decidable".
>
(He doesn't even use the word 'halt'.)

Indeed, but you are assuming that someone called Mr Flibble is posting
according to the usual conventions.  I would not want to assume that his
"false" relates to the immediately preceding quoted text.  I fact, I
would not want to assume that anything he writes relates to anything at
all in the post being replied to.  I think he likes posting
technical-sounding words.  He certainly has no intention to communicate
using words with agreed-upon meanings.

--
Ben.