On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there is no >>>>>> function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft >>>> that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding waffle >>>> about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free
grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect
False. One value is correct and one is incorrect.
Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,
Even though D halts or fails to halt.
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there is no >>>> function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft
that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding waffle
about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free
grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect proving
that this form of the Halting Problem has an incoherent
specification.
Computer Science professor Eric Hehner PhD agrees
in one of his many papers on the Halting Problem. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
Here is another paper by another computer science
professor that most directly agrees with Flibble:
On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there is no >>>>>> function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft >>>> that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding waffle >>>> about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free
grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect
False. One value is correct and one is incorrect.
Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,
Even though D halts or fails to halt.
On 5/4/2025 10:40 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/4/2025 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 10:18 PM, dbush wrote:The only way for the specification to be inconsistent if there was an
On 5/4/2025 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:Category error. Algorithms do one thing and one thing only. And the >>>> algorithm that is the fixed code of the function H and everything it
On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there is no
function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft
that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding waffle >>>>>>>> about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where >>>>>>>> the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward >>>>>>>> undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free >>>>>>>> grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect
False. One value is correct and one is incorrect.
Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,
calls gives the wrong answer, and the opposing answer is the right
answer.
Look at the paper from the PhD computer science
professor.
Halting misconceived?
Bill Stoddart
August 25, 2017
*the halting function, as described, cannot be implemented*,
*because its speci cation is inconsistent*...
*Context*
That halting is not in general computable has been
proved in many text books and taught on many computer
science courses, and is supposed to illustrate the
limits of computation. However, there is a dissenting
view that these proofs are misconceived.
In this paper we look at what is perhaps the simplest
such proof, based on a program that interrogates its own
halting behaviour and then decides to thwart it. This
leads to a contradiction that is generally held to show
that a halting function cannot be implemented.
The dissenting view agrees with the conclusion that
*the halting function, as described, cannot be implemented*,
but suggests that this is *because its speci cation is inconsistent*
https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/ stoddart.pdf >>
algorithm, i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions, that
neither halts nor not halts when executed directly.
OK now we get down to the nuances.
The way that meaning in language actually works
as understood by linguistics: The context of
who as asked a question <is> an aspect of the
full meaning of this question.
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there is no >>>> function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft
that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding waffle
about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free
grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect proving
that this form of the Halting Problem has an incoherent
specification.
Computer Science professor Eric Hehner PhD agrees
in one of his many papers on the Halting Problem. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/halting.html
Here is another paper by another computer science
professor that most directly agrees with Flibble:
Halting misconceived? --- Bill Stoddart --- August 25, 2017 https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/papers/stoddart.pdf
On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because there
is no
function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so daft >>>> that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding waffle >>>> about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free
grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect
False. One value is correct and one is incorrect.
Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,
Even though D halts or fails to halt.
The linguistic context of WHO IS ASKED is an essential
part of the question.
Math and Comp Sci people that are clueless about these
details of how language actually works think that they
can get away with ignoring a crucial part of the actual
question.
The answer given by the algorithm doing the deciding for the algorithm
described by the input is the incorrect one.
On 5/5/2025 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because
there is no
function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion so >>>>>> daft
that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding waffle >>>>>> about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking where >>>>>> the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward
undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free >>>>>> grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect
False. One value is correct and one is incorrect.
Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,
Even though D halts or fails to halt.
No, the given H can only return one of the values.
The other one is correct.
The linguistic context of WHO IS ASKED is an essential
part of the question.
No, because H^ has the same behavior to all deciders, it only makes H
wrong, as it behaves the opposite of whichever is the one answer that
H gives.
Math and Comp Sci people that are clueless about these
details of how language actually works think that they
can get away with ignoring a crucial part of the actual
question.
No, you are clueless as to the requirements of H being a program /
fixed algorithm.
That is NOT what professor Sipser agreed to.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
*would never stop running unless aborted*
is one actual input and the hypothetical
HHH/DD that never aborts.
On 5/6/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/5/25 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/4/2025 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 04/05/2025 23:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
The function is neither computable nor incomputable because >>>>>>>>>> there is no
function at all, just a category error.
It's a point of view.
It's a point of view only in the sense that there is no opinion >>>>>>>> so daft
that it's not someone's point of view. The technical-sounding >>>>>>>> waffle
about it being a "category error" is simply addressed by asking >>>>>>>> where
the supposed category error is in other perfectly straightforward >>>>>>>> undecidable problems. For example, whether or not a context-free >>>>>>>> grammar is ambiguous or not, or the very simple to pose Post
correspondence problem.
Flibble IS CORRECT when the halting problem is defined
to be isomorphic (AKA analogous) to the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true".
When the Halting Problem is defined as an input that
does the opposite of whatever its decider reports
then both Boolean return values are incorrect
False. One value is correct and one is incorrect.
Both Boolean RETURN VALUES FROM H *ARE* INCORRECT,
Even though D halts or fails to halt.
No, the given H can only return one of the values.
The other one is correct.
The linguistic context of WHO IS ASKED is an essential
part of the question.
No, because H^ has the same behavior to all deciders, it only makes
H wrong, as it behaves the opposite of whichever is the one answer
that H gives.
Math and Comp Sci people that are clueless about these
details of how language actually works think that they
can get away with ignoring a crucial part of the actual
question.
No, you are clueless as to the requirements of H being a program /
fixed algorithm.
That is NOT what professor Sipser agreed to.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
*would never stop running unless aborted*
is one actual input and the hypothetical
HHH/DD that never aborts.
But hypothetical DD isn't the DD that was given to the original HHH,
Yet <is> the HHH/DD that professor Sipser agreed to:
*would never stop running unless aborted*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
The above refers to an HHH that does not abort.
The above refers to an HHH that does not abort.
The above refers to an HHH that does not abort.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 10:21:02 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,853 |
| Posted today: | 1 |