Re: The halting problem as defined is a category error

Op 23.jul.2025 om 05:50 schreef olcott:

On 7/22/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/22/25 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/22/2025 5:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-21 14:07:27 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/21/2025 4:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-20 15:04:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/20/2025 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-19 14:59:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/19/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-18 22:11:50 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 13:01:31 -0500, olcott wrote:
>

Claude.ai agrees that the halting problem as defined is a category
error.
>
https://claude.ai/share/0b784d2a-447e-441f-b3f0-a204fa17135a
>
This can only be directly seen within my notion of a simulating halt
decider. I used the Linz proof as my basis.
>
Sorrowfully Peter Linz passed away 2 days less than one year ago on my
Mom's birthday July 19, 2024.

>
I was the first to state that the halting problem as defined is a category
error and I stated it in this forum.

>
Indeed you stated that but failed to identify the actual error. You
did not say which word in the problem statement is wrong or what is
the wrong category or what would be the right one.

>
I conclusively proved the actual category error yet
people that are only interested in rebuttal want no
part of any proof that I am correct.

>
Is it the same error as Flibble found?

>
Flibble's category error is stated abstractly.
My version is stated concretely.

>
Could you post a pointer to your version?

>
The category error is a type mismatch error where
a Turing Machine decider is required to report on
the behavior of a directly executed machine yet
cannot take a directly executed machine as an input.

>
That is not a category error. A category error is a word or phrase
of some category in a context that requires a word or phrase of a
different category.
>

>
The category error is the mistake of assuming that
a directly executing Turing machine is in the category
of input to a Turing machine halt decider.

>
How is that a category error, when it is EXACTLY the category of things that are supposed to be give (via representation) to it.
>

>
The category error is typically stated indirectly by
requiring a Turing machine based halt decider to report
on the behavior of a directly executed Turing machine.
>

>
WHich is what it needs to do,
>

It can be easily corrected by changing the requirement
to report on the behavior that its finite string input
specifies.

>
WHich *IS* the behavior of the directed executed machine.
>
All you are doing is admitting to lying by putting forward a strawman.
>
You seem to assume you are allowed to change the rules of the system and still be in the system.
>
Sorry, that just shows you utter ignorance of the rules of logic.
>

>
*I have conclusively proven that these behaviors diverge*
That people cannot understand this proof does not mean that
it is not a proof.
>

>
Nope, all you have conclusively proven is that you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.
>

 Both of the best two chatbots were also surprised that

Ha, ha. How did they express the surprise?

I proved that a correct simulation does not match the
direct execution when the input calls its own simulator.

You did not prove it, you assumed/guessed it and fed it into the input of the chatbox.

 All four of them immediately understood that DDD correctly
simulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction final halt state.

Yes, when fed with invalid input, they will draw incorrect conclusions.