Sujet : Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. May 2025, 22:47:08
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1008bos$3v7tg$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/16/2025 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/16/2025 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
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.
>
Sure and these two PhD computer science professors
would also have no idea what the
TERMS OF THEIR ART MEAN.
Problems with the Halting Problem
Eric C.R. Hehner
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Halting misconceived?
Bill Stoddart
August 25, 2017
https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong
Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong