Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

On 5/16/25 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

Right, they clearly don't.
Their writing show they don't understand the meaning of a Program in the field.
PHD sometimes mean just they Piled it Higher and Deeper.
Computer Science is a large field, and many people in it never studied this corner of Computation Theory, as it actually has little application to most programing exercises, as it intentionally ignores a lot of asspects that are very important to application programming.

 

>
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
>