Re: Incorrect questions and halt deciders

On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:

For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

 Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
 

There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)

>
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

 Which is a different issue.
 

>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.

 Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.

and a non-existent halt decider H

Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
 

There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
(a) and (b) are isomorphic.

>
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>

 But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final state, which has

That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)

an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed to have specifed before you could ever actually ask the question.
 You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
>

It now seems to me that you never were lying.
The philosophical foundation of these things is very difficult.
It is when you and others ridiculously disagreed with the dead
obvious totally verified facts of the actual behavior behavior
of H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that gave me sufficient reason to conclude
that you and others were lying.
The actual truth seems to be that you and others were so biased
against my position on that you and others persistently ignored
my proof that I was correct many many dozens of times.
Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
many times you and others totally failed.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer