On 8/24/25 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

One very simple transformation of the problem into a solvable problem
is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a tertiary response:
True, False, Neither.

if (DoesItHalt() == True)
   while(True)   // loop forever
     ;
else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
   return False;

else if  (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
   return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed specifically
because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to account
for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True or False.

But "Does it actually Halt" is a boolean function.

It isn't asking "Do I know if it halts?"

Changing the problem doesn't solve it.

Your attempt to do so just shows you don't understand the meaning of the problem.

If I ask you how many cats you owned, and you replied that you had 2
fish, that is not an answer to the question.

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

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:34 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

One very simple transformation of the problem into a solvable problem
is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a tertiary
response:
True, False, Neither.

if (DoesItHalt() == True)
while(True) // loop forever
;
else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
return False;

else if (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed specifically
because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to account
for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True or False.

You are now just copying my idea of a signaling simulating halt decider
(SSHD) that I posted in this forum a few years back. If the halt decider
has three possible results then it is NOT related to the Halting Problem
as defined.

/Flibble



--
meet ever shorter deadlines, known as "beat the clock"

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

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:08:03 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/24/25 6:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:34 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

One very simple transformation of the problem into a solvable problem
is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a tertiary
response:
True, False, Neither.

if (DoesItHalt() == True)
while(True) // loop forever
;
else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
return False;

else if (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed specifically
because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to account
for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True or False.

You are now just copying my idea of a signaling simulating halt decider
(SSHD) that I posted in this forum a few years back. If the halt
decider has three possible results then it is NOT related to the
Halting Problem as defined.

/Flibble

Note the date, that is a 21 year old post, so can't have "copied"
something posted a few years ago.

What I should have said was "So, you are intending to copy my idea..."; in
2004 he didn't flesh out a decider based on three results or what the
third result entails or how it is signalled -- I did.

/Flibble

--
meet ever shorter deadlines, known as "beat the clock"

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

On 8/24/25 6:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:34 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

One very simple transformation of the problem into a solvable problem
is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a tertiary
response:
True, False, Neither.

if (DoesItHalt() == True)
while(True) // loop forever
;
else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
return False;

else if (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed specifically
because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to account
for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True or False.

You are now just copying my idea of a signaling simulating halt decider (SSHD) that I posted in this forum a few years back. If the halt decider
has three possible results then it is NOT related to the Halting Problem
as defined.

/Flibble

Note the date, that is a 21 year old post, so can't have "copied"
something posted a few years ago.

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

On 2025-08-24, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

One very simple transformation of the problem into a solvable problem
is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a tertiary response:
True, False, Neither.

if (DoesItHalt() == True)
while(True) // loop forever
;
else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
return False;

else if (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

This third case, like the others, shows that the decider is wrong. The machine-under-test has terminated, so the answer should have been Yes,
not Neither.

Firstly, there is no need for the diagonal test case to have a return
type corresponding with the halting decision values! By setting it
up that way you are just muddying your thinking with distracting
red herrings.

There is nothing special about this test case executing
"return False" and "return NeitherTrueNorFalse". Both these situations
are instances of termination --- and that's all that matters.

It's better to drop the result type, in which case we get this:

if (DoestItHalt() == True) { for (;;); }
else { return; } // No or NeitherTrueNorFalse

This is also possible and works just as well:

if (DoestItHalt() == False) { return; }
else { for(;;); } // True or NeitherTrueNorFalse

It doesn't matter which behavior the test case takes on for the
"neither" return value. No matter what the test case does, it either
terminates or does not terminate. Those are the only two possibilities
which correspond to True or False.

NeitherTrueNorFalse is always an incorrect answer that is contradicted
by any behavior whatsoever.

So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed specifically
because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to account
for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True or False.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

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

On 25/08/2025 11:30, Richard Harnden wrote:

On 24/08/2025 23:19, olcott wrote:

<snip>

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

You link to a thread on sci.logic in which everybody disagrees
with you.

Which is more likely?
(A) you're a genius and nobody can see it?
or (B) you're wrong?

He's convinced that the correct answer is (A).

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 24/08/2025 23:19, olcott wrote:

On 8/24/2025 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

One very simple transformation of the problem into a solvable problem
is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a tertiary
response:
True, False, Neither.

if (DoesItHalt() == True)
   while(True)   // loop forever
     ;
else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
   return False;

else if  (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
   return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed specifically
because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to account
for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True or False.

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php? id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

You link to a thread on sci.logic in which everybody disagrees with you.

Which is more likely?
(A) you're a genius and nobody can see it?
or (B) you're wrong?

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

On 8/25/25 6:55 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 25/08/2025 11:30, Richard Harnden wrote:

On 24/08/2025 23:19, olcott wrote:

<snip>

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

You link to a thread on sci.logic in which everybody disagrees with you.

Which is more likely?
(A) you're a genius and nobody can see it?
or (B) you're wrong?

He's convinced that the correct answer is (A).

Which is the nature of his insanity.

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

On 8/25/25 2:25 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-08-24, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

One very simple transformation of the problem into a solvable problem
is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a tertiary response: >>> True, False, Neither.

if (DoesItHalt() == True)
while(True) // loop forever
;
else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
return False;

else if (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

This third case, like the others, shows that the decider is wrong. The machine-under-test has terminated, so the answer should have been Yes,
not Neither.

Firstly, there is no need for the diagonal test case to have a return
type corresponding with the halting decision values! By setting it
up that way you are just muddying your thinking with distracting
red herrings.

There is nothing special about this test case executing
"return False" and "return NeitherTrueNorFalse". Both these situations
are instances of termination --- and that's all that matters.

It's better to drop the result type, in which case we get this:

if (DoestItHalt() == True) { for (;;); }
else { return; } // No or NeitherTrueNorFalse

This is also possible and works just as well:

if (DoestItHalt() == False) { return; }
else { for(;;); } // True or NeitherTrueNorFalse

It doesn't matter which behavior the test case takes on for the
"neither" return value. No matter what the test case does, it either terminates or does not terminate. Those are the only two possibilities
which correspond to True or False.

NeitherTrueNorFalse is always an incorrect answer that is contradicted
by any behavior whatsoever.

So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed specifically
because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to account
for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True or False.

I think he is confusing the problem with the variant where the decider
is to return the value a given other algorithm will return if it returns
one, or 0 if it will never return.

The "pathological" program then just returns 0 if the decider says it
will return a non-zero results and 1 if it says it will return 0 or
never halt.

This program clearly always halts if the decider meets the definition of
giving a result, and the decider clearly can't return the right answer.

This is often presented in a diagonalization proof.

Olcott, in his typical parrot what I read without understanding has
merged parts of his reading without knowing what he is talking about.

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

On 2025-08-24 22:19:44 +0000, olcott said:

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

Everything you have provided after that is repetition of the same
fundamental errors, sometimes differently formulated.

--
Mikko

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

On 26/08/2025 10:51, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-08-24 22:19:44 +0000, olcott said:

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

Everything you have provided after that is repetition of the same
fundamental errors, sometimes differently formulated.

Fascinating to see the kick-off, 68 years after the final
whistle, but somewhat dispiriting to see that the game hasn't
changed a jot.

NOBODY can be this stupid.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 26/08/2025 16:40, olcott wrote:

On 8/26/2025 5:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

Fascinating to see the kick-off, 68 years after the final
whistle, but somewhat dispiriting to see that the game hasn't
changed a jot.

NOBODY can be this stupid.

This reasoning does apply to the Liar Paradox
Is the Liar Paradox true or false? it is not
a truth bearer thus has no truth value.

"Does DD halt when HHH(DD) claims that it doesn't?" has an answer
- a simple answer. It does. HHH gets it wrong. No paradoxes need
apply.

It also applies to an actual input that can do
the opposite of whatever its decider reports.

The Halting Problem calls for a universal decider. Since no
universal decider can exist.

Back then I didn't know that no such ACTUAL INPUT
can possibly exist.

Since no universal decider can exist, clearly no input can be
presented to one.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 8/26/25 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/26/2025 5:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 26/08/2025 10:51, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-08-24 22:19:44 +0000, olcott said:

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

Everything you have provided after that is repetition of the same
fundamental errors, sometimes differently formulated.

Fascinating to see the kick-off, 68 years after the final whistle, but
somewhat dispiriting to see that the game hasn't changed a jot.

NOBODY can be this stupid.

This reasoning does apply to the Liar Paradox
Is the Liar Paradox true or false? it is not
a truth bearer thus has no truth value.

It also applies to an actual input that can do
the opposite of whatever its decider reports.
Back then I didn't know that no such ACTUAL INPUT
can possibly exist.

Nope, because when the decider is an actual program (as required) so is
the input, and thus it WILL have a correct answer, just not the ONE
answer that the program gives.

You forget that H(D) can only give one answer, as H is a deterministic algorithm being applied to a specific input.

To imagine it doing something different is just to lie.

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

On 2025-08-26 16:33:12 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/26/2025 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-08-24 22:19:44 +0000, olcott said:

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B

Everything you have provided after that is repetition of the same
fundamental errors, sometimes differently formulated.

That is my first post on the HP back in 2004.
I posted to sci.logic before I knew about
comp.theory. This post was not aware that
there cannot possibly be any actual input
that does the opposite of the value that
its decider returns.

You are right, you introduced that error later.

--
Mikko

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