On 2024-01-29 18:03:32 +0000, olcott said:

On 1/29/2024 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-01-28 19:25:42 +0000, olcott said:

On 1/28/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/28/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 1/28/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/28/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 1/27/2024 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/25/2004 6:30 PM, Daryl McCullough wrote:

It is becoming increasingly clear that Peter Olcott...

You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
yes/no answer to the following question:

       Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question. >>>>>>>>>
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

After all these years this deserves academic credit
because it forms a perfect isomorphism to the halting
problem's decider / input pair.

*A slightly adapted version is carefully examined in this paper* >>>>>>>>
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation? >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

This paper contains professor Hehner's 2017 careful analysis
of an isomorphism to the halting problem (presented to me in 2004) >>>>>>> decider/input pair where professor Hehner proves my 2004 claim
that the halting problem is an ill-formed question. Two other
professors express concurring opinions.

Which starts with the ERROR that it thinks that a Computation can be >>>>>> "Context Dependent"

Your own lack of comprehension really can't be any basis for a
correct rebuttal. I provide links to the original papers.

Which makes a similar error of thinking that the program is not
properly defined.

    The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt test
    exists and then provides S as an example of a program that the
    test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all. It is not
    even a conceptual object, and this is due to inconsistencies
    in the specification of the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017)

The clearest way to sum up what these three author's are saying is
that the halting problem is defined with unsatisfiable specification.

That is a reasonable way to say it but only if you accept that there
is a proof that the specification is unsatisfiable. If you reject all
proposed proofs you must say that it is an open question whether the
halting problem is defined with unsatisriable specification.

Mikko

Self-contradictory questions have been shown to define infinite
structures that cannot be resolved in finite time.

Many questions about infinite structures can be answered in finite
time. For example, it is proven that rational numbers are equinumerous
with integer numbers and that real numbers are not.

--
Mikko

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