On 3/14/25 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.

Nope, the problem is that when we define the problem is for *ANY*
program, any includes programs that can do that as the computation
system is that powerful.

The Halting problem is not about specifically the possible pathological program, but to answer about *ANY* program/data pair, and any includes
that pathological program. And the problem is that you can't just
exclude that one particular case, as it turns out while it is the
simplest case to show, and it turns out it is also impossible to detect
if the input program actually matches that pattern close enough to cause
the problem, as it doesn't need to be an exact copy of the decider, just
a computation that returns the same answer for this input and there are unbounded ways to manipulate the copy of the decider to get another
equivalent that causes the pathological relationship, but you are not
able to PROVE that it is actually that relationship.

Sorry, but all you are doing is admitting the problem is impossible, and
that your alternative isn't actually what the full comunity wants from
such a decider.

When we define the problem as the behavior that input
finite string DD specifies as measured by N steps of
DD correctly simulated by HHH then this DD cannot
possibly reach the self-contradictory portion of its
own code. This DD simply remains stuck in recursive
simulation for each of the N steps that HHH correctly
simulates.

But that isn't the problem we want the answer to.

It seems your answer to being given a problem too hard for you to answer
is to pretend to agree to answer the problem, and then answer a strawman problem.

Your problem is that you just don't understand the nature of logic and
its focus on doing what is DEFINED by the system, because you inherently
don't see the need to follow the rules as you nature is nothing but
being a pathological liar.

You are just showing that you argument is based on committing FRAUD.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-14 18:29:13 +0000, olcott said:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.

There are also problems that were defined with the idea that someone
would solve them but later turned out to be unsolvable, for example
angle trisection with straightedge and compass.

That a formal problem is unsolvable need not prevent solving similar
practical problem. A question like (1) is not useful for any practical
purpose so there is never any parctical need to ask it. The problem
(2) is so obviously unsolvable that everyone can try to avoid situations
where that solution would be needed. That (3) is unsolvable is not as
obvious and a solution would be useful, so someone might put some
considerable effort to solve it. Still, a partial solution, i.e. a method
that does not answer every input but produces the right answer in many
cases and never the wrong answer, can be useful for practical purposes.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-15 01:03:13 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that clearly stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the
problem specification requires an integer
and this integer is not allowed to be
construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that meets the
specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies that clearly
stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot
possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value.

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such that H(X,Y)
computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y?  And the
answer is no.

Is this gibberish true: "kjj sdfj 34988h sdfse" is also no.
Why is it not true? It is not true because it is gibberish.

It is empirically true as nobody, as far as we can know, has observed
a situation where "kjj sdfj 34988h sdfse" as been observed to be false.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/14/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that clearly >>>>>>>>>> stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the
problem specification requires an integer
and this integer is not allowed to be
construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that meets >>>>>>>> the specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies that >>>>>>>>>> clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot
possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value.

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such that >>>>>>>> H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X >>>>>>>> and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of
the counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies this
definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say.

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a
concept taught to and understood by high school students more that
50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction
that our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction
proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below
requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then find
the above question can't be answered, therefore the assumption that a
number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a
BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM

BOGUS FORM
*This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input*
What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return
for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

WHY FORM
Why can't H return a correct Boolean value for
an input that does the opposite of whatever it returns?
SELF-CONTRADICTION PREVENTS A CORRECT ANSWER

VALID FORM
Can halt decider H correctly return for input
D that does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns? NO

What time is it (yes or no)? has no correct
answer because of type mismatch error.
{Yes,No} ∩ Time_Of_Day = NULL

And all of your forms are just strawman, as the ACTUAL question is "Does
the program desdcribed by the input halt when it is directly run?"

There is NO mention of the decider in the correct form, as the question
isn't about the decider, but about the problem, and the program that is
in this example, because that is how deciding problems are defined.

We define a mapping as a mathematical construct, and then the
computability question is can one of the countably infinite number of
possible deciders compute this particular mapping, which is out of an uncountably large number of possible mappings.

Note, the program can't use the mapping itself, like it can the decider,
unless we first show that we can make a decider for the mapping. It is a
proven property of Turing Compatible processioning that any program /
data combination will always do the same thing, and thus there is a
definite answer to whether that program / data combination will halt.

IT just turns out that for any possible decider we can try to define,
there will always be at least one input that it will not get correct,
the input defined by the decider-contradictory program (not self-contradictory), and thus we find that the Semantic Property of
Halting can not be Decided by a Turing Compatible computation.

The question is valid, as it has a purely objective form, so there is a
correct answer for the input, it is just that one decider it was
designed to foil WILL get the answer wrong.

All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are talking
about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/15/25 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/14/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that clearly >>>>>>>>>>>> stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the
problem specification requires an integer
and this integer is not allowed to be
construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that >>>>>>>>>> meets the specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies that >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot
possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value.

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such that >>>>>>>>>> H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X >>>>>>>>>> and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of
the counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies this
definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say.

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a
concept taught to and understood by high school students more that >>>>>> 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction
that our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction
proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below
requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then
find the above question can't be answered, therefore the assumption
that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a
BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM

BOGUS FORM
*This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input*
What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return
for input D that does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns? (answer required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

WHY FORM
Why can't H return a correct Boolean value for
an input that does the opposite of whatever it returns?
SELF-CONTRADICTION PREVENTS A CORRECT ANSWER

VALID FORM
Can halt decider H correctly return for input
D that does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns? NO

What time is it (yes or no)? has no correct
answer because of type mismatch error.
{Yes,No} ∩ Time_Of_Day = NULL

And all of your forms are just strawman, as the ACTUAL question is
"Does the program desdcribed by the input halt when it is directly run?"

THAT IS NOT THE ACTUAL QUESTION IN THE COUNTER-EXAMPLE CASE.
THE COUNTER-EXAMPLE CASE HAS MORE DETAILS THAT THE GENERAL
CASE LACKS.

The counter example is just a specifically designed program and input
based on the decider that it has been decider to prove to be incorrect.

What "More Detail" other than specifying the program/input is there.

The inability to do the logically impossible is dishonestly
referred to as undecidable instances of a decision problem.

No, it is dishonest to change the meaning of the words of the theory and
try to refute a strawman.

That is the very thing you have admitted to have done.

You strawman has been proven for what it is, a lying fraud that doesn't
meet the actual requirements of the problem, and it seems you are just
too stupid to understand what any of that means.

Sorry, you are just provimg how stupid you are by just repeating you
lies, even after they have been pointed out. All this shows is that you
are mentally incapable of understanding the truth or what you are
talking about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 22:13:05 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/25 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/14/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>> stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the problem
specification requires an integer and this integer is not >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to be construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that >>>>>>>>>>> meets the specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value >>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D and input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D can actually does the opposite of whatever value that H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns, then we have boxed ourselves in to a problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies that >>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value.

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such that >>>>>>>>>>> H(X,Y) computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X >>>>>>>>>>> and Y?  And the answer is no.

Why can't a halt decider determine the halt status of the
counter-example input?

Because you incorrectly assumed that an H that satisfies this >>>>>>>>> definition exists:

That is what blind rote memorization of textbooks would say.

In other words, you don't understand proof by contradiction, a
concept taught to and understood by high school students more that >>>>>>> 50 years your junior.

We assume that someone can correctly answer this question: What
time is it (yes or no)?

Because the question is bogus we have proof by contradiction that
our assumption was false.

Because the counter-example input derives a self-contradiction >>>>>>>> proving

That the assumption that an H exists that satisfies the below
requirements is false:

What integer N is > 5 and < 2

So you started by assuming that such an integer exists.  We then
find the above question can't be answered, therefore the assumption
that a number N that is > 5 and < 2 is false.

In each of the questions there is a BOGUS FORM  WHY FORM  VALID FORM >>>>
BOGUS FORM *This is the BOGUS form of the HP counter-example input*
What Boolean value can halt decider H correctly return for input D
that does the opposite of whatever value that H returns? (answer
required to be Boolean)
NO CORRECT ANSWER THUS INCORRECT QUESTION

WHY FORM Why can't H return a correct Boolean value for an input that
does the opposite of whatever it returns? SELF-CONTRADICTION PREVENTS
A CORRECT ANSWER

VALID FORM Can halt decider H correctly return for input D that does
the opposite of whatever value that H returns? NO

What time is it (yes or no)? has no correct answer because of type
mismatch error.
{Yes,No} ∩ Time_Of_Day = NULL

And all of your forms are just strawman, as the ACTUAL question is
"Does the program desdcribed by the input halt when it is directly
run?"

THAT IS NOT THE ACTUAL QUESTION IN THE COUNTER-EXAMPLE CASE.
THE COUNTER-EXAMPLE CASE HAS MORE DETAILS THAT THE GENERAL CASE LACKS.

The counter example is just a specifically designed program and input
based on the decider that it has been decider to prove to be incorrect.

What "More Detail" other than specifying the program/input is there.

The inability to do the logically impossible is dishonestly referred to
as undecidable instances of a decision problem.

No, it is dishonest to change the meaning of the words of the theory and
try to refute a strawman.

That is the very thing you have admitted to have done.

You strawman has been proven for what it is, a lying fraud that doesn't
meet the actual requirements of the problem, and it seems you are just
too stupid to understand what any of that means.

Sorry, you are just provimg how stupid you are by just repeating you
lies, even after they have been pointed out. All this shows is that you
are mentally incapable of understanding the truth or what you are
talking about.

Why don't you focus on something more productive, Mr Damon?

/Flibble

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-15 21:38:26 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/15/2025 5:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-15 01:03:13 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/14/2025 6:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?
(2) What integer X is > 5 and < 3?

The correct answer is that no number satisfies that clearly stated requirement

Incorrect answer type mismatch error the
problem specification requires an integer
and this integer is not allowed to be
construed as Boolean.

So the prerequisite question is does an integer exist that meets the
specification, and the answer is no.

(1) What time is it (yes or no)?

(3) When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.

And as above, the correct answer is that no H satisfies that clearly >>>>>> stated requirement.

In the same way that "this sentence is not true" cannot
possibly be correctly evaluated to any Boolean value.

The question is, as you have agreed: does an H exist such that H(X,Y)
computes if X(Y) halts when executed directly for all X and Y?  And the >>>> answer is no.

Is this gibberish true: "kjj sdfj 34988h sdfse" is also no.
Why is it not true? It is not true because it is gibberish.

It is empirically true as nobody, as far as we can know, has observed
a situation where "kjj sdfj 34988h sdfse" as been observed to be false.

It is that kind of thinking that powers Nazi propaganda:
I will take X to be true until you convince me that X is false.

Nazi propaganda did not work that way. They did as you do: keep
repeating and never prove.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)