On 1/25/23 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> ...
>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>
>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>
>
> *I didn't say that* There is a program H that can divide all of its
> inputs into halting and non-halting on the basis of the behavior of this
> input D correctly simulated by H.

But that is the WRONG answer, because it doesn't match the PROBLEM.

>
>    In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>    initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>    and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>    solution can be shown to exist.

And the answer to the Halting Problem is the answer that no such machine
can be built.

>
> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
> ill-defined

And you don't understnad the nature of the Halting Problem.

It ISN'T asking for a "Unique" solution, it is asking if a correct
solution can possible exist.

The answer is NO.

The problem is well defined.

We have a mathematical function which when given a machine and an input,
determines if said machine will Halt in finite time or not.

THis is a WELL DEFINED function, as all machines given any input will
either Halt on that input or not.

The question is can this mathematical function be converted into a
computation, something computable by a finite algorithm.

The answer is NO, because no such machine can be built.

>
> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947

Which is taking about a differnt type of problem, on more commonly
called a PUZZLE.

>
> When a simulating halt decider H is only required to report on the the
> behavior of D correctly simulated by H, then the problem has a solution.

So you ADMIT you aren't solving the ACTUAL halting problem.

FINE

The fact you claim it answers the original problem

NO, and just proves you are either a pathological liar or an idiot.

>
>> All these years pretending you have written one... You should feel
>> sad, right? You shouldn't, at end you've admitted the obvious
>> truth.
>>
>> Note that a function that is an halt decider is perfectly well
>> defined. So no, the "problem" is NOT ill-defined (whatever that
>> means).
>>
>
>

On 1/25/23 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 6:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2023 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2023 5:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/23 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/25/2023 5:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/25/23 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/24/2023 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/23 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/2023 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/23 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/2023 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/23 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program and an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, whether the program will finish running, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This definition of the halting problem measures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness in a non-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological way, thus in the same way that ZFC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (redefined set theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and) eliminated Russell's Paradox the previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible" input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ceases to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of defining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a machine that correctly determines from a description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer program and an input, whether or not its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified input pair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would terminate normally by reaching it own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, the Decider must decide if the actual running of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the program described by the input would halt when given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input that is the rest of that input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is NOT asking if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conventional proofs do not actually show that such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be defined. HH(PP, PP) does correctly determine that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach the final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. (See pages 5-6 of this paper)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation is incorrect then there must a line of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that behaves differently than what its corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line of machine-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is incorrect because it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just usong the INCORRECT definition of "Correct",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and since you have been told this in the past, it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you are a LIAR about this fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Correct Simulation" is defined as a simulation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the actual behavior of the machine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input describes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that is incorrect. The ultimate measure of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is whether or not the simulated input exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by its machine code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, Sourcd for that claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Counter-examples cannot possibly exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and show any correct simulation where the simulator does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not simulate what the machine language specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since the direct eecution of the machine language of PP(PP)
>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt, the correct simulation of it must match.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a provably false assumption.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then do so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remember, your HH has been admitted to return 0 from HH(PP,PP),
>>>>>>>>> and to be a computation, it must do the same to EVERY call.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YOU have posted the execution trace of the direct execution of
>>>>>>>>> the equivalent to PP, which shows it halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can see on pages 5-6 that PP correctly simulated by HH
>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach it own final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that isn't the questipon, since that question, like the
>>>>>>> Liar's paradox has no answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes the Halting Problem ill-defined:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, your RESTATEMENT is ill-defined. The behavior of P is well
>>>>> defined given a proper definition of H
>>>>>
>>>>> H(P,P) can do one of 4 things, and can't do anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) H(P,P) can return 0, in which case P(P) will halt, and H is
>>>>> shown to be wrong. This is what you claim your H does when directly
>>>>> called.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) H(P,P) can retrun 1, in which case, P(P) will go into an
>>>>> infinite loop, and H is shown to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) H(P,P) can just dies and halt and not return an answer, in which
>>>>> case H fails to be the needed halt decider, and P(P) will be halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) H(P,P) can get stuck in an infinte loop, and never return an
>>>>> answer, in which case H fails to be the needed halt decider, and
>>>>> P(P) will be non-halting. This is what you seem to claim is what H
>>>>> does when simulated inside P.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the initial
>>>>>> state or starting position, the allowable operations, and the goal
>>>>>> state are clearly specified, *and a unique solution can be shown
>>>>>> to exist*
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and given an actual definition of the complete algorithm of
>>>>> H (and 'Get the right answer' is NOT an complete algorithm) there
>>>>> is a precise correct answer to the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately of H, H can never give that answer.
>>>>
>>>> Thus making the halting problem ill-defined.
>>>
>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>> when directly executed and those that do not in the same way and for the
>>> same reason that there is no barber that shaves all and only those that
>>> do not shave themselves. ZFC eliminated this problem by declaring it is
>>> erroneous.
>>>
>>
>> Right, which shows that the Haltng Theorm is CORRECT, that that the
>> Halting Function is not computable.
>>
>> So, you agree with the Theorem that you have been arguing against for
>> 2 decades?
>>
>>> Every decision problem where
>>> *a unique solution CANNOT be shown to exist*
>>> is erroneous.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, just shows that the problem is not computable.
>>
> In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the initial state
> or starting position, the allowable operations, and the goal state are
> clearly specified, and a unique solution can be shown to exist.
>
> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
> ill-defined
>
> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

> Peter Olcott wrote:
> ...
>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>> when directly executed and those that do not
>
> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!

Not so fast! Remember that PO is often fractally wrong. Not only is he
usually wrong about the big picture he's usually wrong about all the
details too. In this case, he's having trouble expressing what he
means. This is actually just another iteration of his "it's an invalid
question" stance, badly phrased.

--
Ben.

On 1/25/23 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>
>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I didn't say that*
>>
>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>
>
> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*

Not by the definition of Conputation theory

>    In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>    initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>    and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>    solution can be shown to exist.
>
> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
> ill-defined
>
> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947

Which is from a different field with different definition.

They are talking about PUZZLES as "Problems".

You are just showing your ignorance of the topic, an ignorance you
imposed on yourself by refusing to actually trying to learn any of the
topic (or being unable due to mental definciencies)

>
> *This corrects the error with the definition of the halting problem*
> When a simulating halt decider H is only required to report on the
> behavior of D correctly simulated by H, then this problem has a
> solution.

But you aren't allowed to do that.

>
> *ZFC eliminated Russell's Paradox by redefining the problem*
>

Note, ZFC eliminated Russell's Paradox by creating a totally new field
of Set Theory. It didn't "redefine the problem", but put restrictions on
the field to keep the problem from being able to happen.

Yes, you can do the same thing with the Halting Problem, by restricting
the domain of the machines you can create, you can make a Turing Machine
that can correctly decide on them.

But, such a domain can't be asked the question that we want to be able
to ask, so doesn't help us.

This is just like incompleteness can be overcome by limiting the domain
of your logic theory, it is just that such a field can't handle all the
properties of the Natural Numbers. As I remember, it must only use First
Order Logic, and there may be some other limitations (and no such system
can prove in itself that it is consistent).

On 1/25/23 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> One simple comment that comes to mind that points out the error in
>> your thinking:
>>
>> The number of possible computing machines is a countable infinite,
>> because we can express every such machine as a finite string of a
>> finite symbol set.
>>
>> The number of possible deciders that can be defined is an UNCOUNTABLE
>> infinite.
>>
>
> I had a very very long debate about this with a PhD computer scientist.
> When we make one single universal halt decider that correctly determines
> the halt status of any arbitrary input pair then the countability issue
> ceases to exist.
>

So, by assuming an impossible machine exists, you can prove a false
statement.

Yep, that is your logic system. TOTALLY INCONSISTENT.

IT FAILS.

You just are proving your mental deficencies when it comes to
understanding mathematics.

Le 26/01/2023 à 01:54, olcott a écrit :
> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>
>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I didn't say that*
>>
>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>
>
> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>    In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>    initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>    and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>    solution can be shown to exist.
>
> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
> ill-defined

Either a program stops or not. This is not ill-defined at all.

And you are right : no program can decide on that from its input.

You should be happy to have been right ONCE in your entire life.

On 1/25/2023 7:16 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 26/01/2023 à 02:06, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :
>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>
>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>
>> Not so fast!  Remember that PO is often fractally wrong.  Not only is he
>> usually wrong about the big picture he's usually wrong about all the
>> details too.  In this case, he's having trouble expressing what he
>> means.  This is actually just another iteration of his "it's an invalid
>> question" stance, badly phrased.
>
> So he is right, for once, by what he actually wrote expressed
> badly a faulty claim. As far as know him, he's definitely able to to
> that. Quite a paradox in a way, of his kind... :-)
>
> Taken word for word the sentence of him I quoted is actually quite
> right and expressed the actual opposite of all he claimed for years.
>

In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the initial
state or starting position, the allowable operations, and the goal
state are clearly specified, and a unique solution can be shown to
exist.

*a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
ill-defined

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947

Proving that the halting problem as conventionally understood is [well-
defined problem]

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Le 26/01/2023 à 02:25, olcott a écrit :
> On 1/25/2023 7:16 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 26/01/2023 à 02:06, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :
>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>
>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>
>>> Not so fast!  Remember that PO is often fractally wrong.  Not only is he
>>> usually wrong about the big picture he's usually wrong about all the
>>> details too.  In this case, he's having trouble expressing what he
>>> means.  This is actually just another iteration of his "it's an invalid
>>> question" stance, badly phrased.
>>
>> So he is right, for once, by what he actually wrote expressed
>> badly a faulty claim. As far as know him, he's definitely able to to
>> that. Quite a paradox in a way, of his kind... :-)
>>
>> Taken word for word the sentence of him I quoted is actually quite
>> right and expressed the actual opposite of all he claimed for years.
>>
>
>    In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the initial
>    state or starting position, the allowable operations, and the goal
>    state are clearly specified, and a unique solution can be shown to
>    exist.
>
> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
> ill-defined

This is asinine, Peter. An equation with no solution is not ill-defined,
it just has no solution.

On 1/25/2023 7:18 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:54, olcott a écrit :
>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>
>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>
>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>
>>
>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>
>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>> ill-defined
>
> Either a program stops or not. This is not ill-defined at all.

The problem of defining a machine that correctly determines whether or
not any arbitrary pair of finite strings represents a halting
computation or not can be solved by a simulating halt decider.

The problem of passing the correct answer through a liar that reverses
this answer cannot be solved.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/2023 7:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/25/23 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/25/2023 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> One simple comment that comes to mind that points out the error in
>>> your thinking:
>>>
>>> The number of possible computing machines is a countable infinite,
>>> because we can express every such machine as a finite string of a
>>> finite symbol set.
>>>
>>> The number of possible deciders that can be defined is an UNCOUNTABLE
>>> infinite.
>>>
>>
>> I had a very very long debate about this with a PhD computer scientist.
>> When we make one single universal halt decider that correctly determines
>> the halt status of any arbitrary input pair then the countability issue
>> ceases to exist.
>>
>
> So, by assuming an impossible machine exists, you can prove a false
> statement.
>

By hypothesizing a single halt decider for the infinite set of arbitrary
finite string pairs countability ceases to be an issue.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/23 8:18 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:54, olcott a écrit :
>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>
>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>
>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>
>>
>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>
>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>> ill-defined
>
> Either a program stops or not. This is not ill-defined at all.
>
> And you are right : no program can decide on that from its input.
>
> You should be happy to have been right ONCE in your entire life.
>
>
>

His problem is he so misunderstands things that he found a defionition
of a "Well Defined Problem" that releates to the field of PUZZLES.

It specifically is talking about "Problems" like the "Tower of Hanoi"
where the problem is to transform a system from one defined state to
another with a defined set of moves.

Note, even the Tower of Hanoi is technically not "well defined" as the
answer isn't unique, as you can add arbitrary side tracks to the optimal
solution and still get there. By this defiition, the Tower of Hanoi is
only Well Defined if you include the requirement of doing so in a
minumum number of moves.

On 1/25/23 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 7:18 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:54, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>>
>>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>>
>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>> ill-defined
>>
>> Either a program stops or not. This is not ill-defined at all.
>
> The problem of defining a machine that correctly determines whether or
> not any arbitrary pair of finite strings represents a halting
> computation or not can be solved by a simulating halt decider.

But it isn't a problem of the type described.

The Halting Problem does NOT start for a specified initial state, and
end in another specified final state, and there is not a specifically
listed set of operations allowed (just that it must use a computation).

Thus, the problem isn't of the domain being described, which happens to
be what we commonly describe as PUZZLES.

>
> The problem of passing the correct answer through a liar that reverses
> this answer cannot be solved.
>

Le 26/01/2023 à 02:32, olcott a écrit :
> On 1/25/2023 7:18 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:54, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>>
>>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>>
>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>> ill-defined
>>
>> Either a program stops or not. This is not ill-defined at all.
>
> The problem of defining a machine that correctly determines whether or
> not any arbitrary pair of finite strings represents a halting
> computation or not can be solved by a simulating halt decider.
>
> The problem of passing the correct answer through a liar that reverses
> this answer cannot be solved.

There is nothing of that kind here.

The problem is perfectly defined.

It cannot be solved by a machine (i.e. a program) as you wrote.

Why cannot you keep being right when you are (which happened almost
NEVER)?

On 1/25/2023 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/25/23 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>
>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>
>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>
>>
>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>
> Not by the definition of Conputation theory
>
>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>
>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>> ill-defined
>>
>> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947
>
> Which is from a different field with different definition.
>
> They are talking about PUZZLES as "Problems".
>
> You are just showing your ignorance of the topic, an ignorance you
> imposed on yourself by refusing to actually trying to learn any of the
> topic (or being unable due to mental definciencies)
>

They are merely saying what I have been saying all along yet applying it
simultaneously to all fields.

I have been saying the every undecidable decision problem is necessarily
erroneous, thus not any sort of legitimate problem at all.

My first key breakthrough on this was my
*logical law of polar questions*

When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.

All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)
have exactly one answer from the following:
1) No
2) Yes
3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions

Copyright 2015 PL Olcott
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/23 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 7:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2023 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> One simple comment that comes to mind that points out the error in
>>>> your thinking:
>>>>
>>>> The number of possible computing machines is a countable infinite,
>>>> because we can express every such machine as a finite string of a
>>>> finite symbol set.
>>>>
>>>> The number of possible deciders that can be defined is an
>>>> UNCOUNTABLE infinite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I had a very very long debate about this with a PhD computer scientist.
>>> When we make one single universal halt decider that correctly determines
>>> the halt status of any arbitrary input pair then the countability issue
>>> ceases to exist.
>>>
>>
>> So, by assuming an impossible machine exists, you can prove a false
>> statement.
>>
>
> By hypothesizing a single halt decider for the infinite set of arbitrary
> finite string pairs countability ceases to be an issue.
>

So your answer to trying to do the impossible is to just assume you can
do something impossible.

There goes your idea that Truth is based on a connection to the
fundamental Truth Makers of the field you are in.

You have just defined that you logic system if fundamentally inconsistent.

I guess that just shows you are a *Hypocritical* Pathological Lying Idiot.

On 1/25/2023 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/25/23 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/25/2023 7:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>
>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>
>>> Not so fast!  Remember that PO is often fractally wrong.  Not only is he
>>> usually wrong about the big picture he's usually wrong about all the
>>> details too.  In this case, he's having trouble expressing what he
>>> means.  This is actually just another iteration of his "it's an invalid
>>> question" stance, badly phrased.
>>>
>>
>> *This time www.oxfordreference.com agrees*
>>
>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the initial
>>     state or starting position, the allowable operations, and the goal
>>     state are clearly specified, and a unique solution can be shown to
>>     exist.
>>
>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>> ill-defined
>>
>> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947
>>
>>
>
> But using the definitions of a DIFFERENT Field.

Their statement universally applies to all problems including decision
problems. I have known this all along, finally the rest of the world is
beginning to catch up.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/2023 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/25/23 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/25/2023 7:18 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:54, olcott a écrit :
>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their
>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>>>
>>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>>> ill-defined
>>>
>>> Either a program stops or not. This is not ill-defined at all.
>>
>> The problem of defining a machine that correctly determines whether or
>> not any arbitrary pair of finite strings represents a halting
>> computation or not can be solved by a simulating halt decider.
>
> But it isn't a problem of the type described.
>
> The Halting Problem does NOT start for a specified initial state, and
> end in another specified final state, and there is not a specifically
> listed set of operations allowed (just that it must use a computation).
>

Initial state or starting position: (start state of decider)

the allowable operations:
H simulates an input finite string pair (D,I) until the behavior of D
(a) Matches a non-halting behavior pattern (H aborts and rejects)
(b) Reaches its own final state (H accepts)

the goal state: (accept or reject state of decider)

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>>
>>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>
>> Not by the definition of Conputation theory
>>
>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>>
>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>> ill-defined
>>>
>>> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947
>>
>> Which is from a different field with different definition.
>>
>> They are talking about PUZZLES as "Problems".
>>
>> You are just showing your ignorance of the topic, an ignorance you
>> imposed on yourself by refusing to actually trying to learn any of the
>> topic (or being unable due to mental definciencies)
>>
>
> They are merely saying what I have been saying all along yet applying it
> simultaneously to all fields.

Nope, it is SPECIFICALLY talking about "Problems" defined as figuring
out what sequence of transformations from a defined list will take you
from the specified inital state to a specified final state.

That isn't the type of "Problem" that the Halting Problem is.

>
> I have been saying the every undecidable decision problem is necessarily
> erroneous, thus not any sort of legitimate problem at all.

Then you are wrong. PERIOD

>
> My first key breakthrough on this was my
> *logical law of polar questions*

But the Halting problem as specified isn't Polar.

So that isn't applicable.

>
> When posed to a man whom has never been married,
> the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
> Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
> no is a correct answer.
>
> All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)
> have exactly one answer from the following:
> 1) No
> 2) Yes
> 3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions
>
> Copyright 2015 PL Olcott
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>
>
>

And the question "Does the Machine specified by the input Halt when
given the input specified by the input Halt?"

Always has a correct Yes or No answer, so, by your own definition, is
not "incorrect".

Only when you erronously change the question, do you get your incorrect
question, so YOU are the one with the bad question.

On 1/25/23 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2023 7:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>
>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>
>>>> Not so fast!  Remember that PO is often fractally wrong.  Not only
>>>> is he
>>>> usually wrong about the big picture he's usually wrong about all the
>>>> details too.  In this case, he's having trouble expressing what he
>>>> means.  This is actually just another iteration of his "it's an invalid
>>>> question" stance, badly phrased.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This time www.oxfordreference.com agrees*
>>>
>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the initial
>>>     state or starting position, the allowable operations, and the goal
>>>     state are clearly specified, and a unique solution can be shown to
>>>     exist.
>>>
>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>> ill-defined
>>>
>>> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But using the definitions of a DIFFERENT Field.
>
> Their statement universally applies to all problems including decision
> problems. I have known this all along, finally the rest of the world is
> beginning to catch up.
>

How?

it specificially talks about problems based on starting at a specified
initial state and getting to a specified final state, using a sequence
of transfomation from a defined set.

That isn't "All Problems", and you claim it does shows you are either a
Pathological Liar or a total idiot, or both.

You are also showing that you are a Hypocrite, as you are not following
your own rule for truth which requires a conenction to the actual
accepted Truth Makers of the system, which you aren't doing.

You are just proving how stupid you are.

On 1/25/2023 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/25/23 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/25/2023 7:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/25/23 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One simple comment that comes to mind that points out the error in
>>>>> your thinking:
>>>>>
>>>>> The number of possible computing machines is a countable infinite,
>>>>> because we can express every such machine as a finite string of a
>>>>> finite symbol set.
>>>>>
>>>>> The number of possible deciders that can be defined is an
>>>>> UNCOUNTABLE infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had a very very long debate about this with a PhD computer scientist.
>>>> When we make one single universal halt decider that correctly
>>>> determines
>>>> the halt status of any arbitrary input pair then the countability issue
>>>> ceases to exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, by assuming an impossible machine exists, you can prove a false
>>> statement.
>>>
>>
>> By hypothesizing a single halt decider for the infinite set of arbitrary
>> finite string pairs countability ceases to be an issue.
>>
>
> So your answer to trying to do the impossible is to just assume you can
> do something impossible.
>

*Not at all*
Under the conditions that I specified countability definitely does
become moot, thus conclusively proving that countability
is not always an issue.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/23 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2023 7:18 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:54, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of
>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their
>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>>>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>>>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>>>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>>>> ill-defined
>>>>
>>>> Either a program stops or not. This is not ill-defined at all.
>>>
>>> The problem of defining a machine that correctly determines whether or
>>> not any arbitrary pair of finite strings represents a halting
>>> computation or not can be solved by a simulating halt decider.
>>
>> But it isn't a problem of the type described.
>>
>> The Halting Problem does NOT start for a specified initial state, and
>> end in another specified final state, and there is not a specifically
>> listed set of operations allowed (just that it must use a computation).
>>
>
> Initial state or starting position: (start state of decider)

Which is? Note, every "problem" being posed within the Halting Problem

So, you are transforming the Halting Problem into an INFINTE number of
"Problems" one for each possible queztion to the Halt Decider.

>
> the allowable operations:
>   H simulates an input finite string pair (D,I) until the behavior of D
>   (a) Matches a non-halting behavior pattern (H aborts and rejects)
>   (b) Reaches its own final state (H accepts)

So, what is the actual list of transfomations of the state this performs?

Seems like you don't actually understand the problem

>
> the goal state: (accept or reject state of decider)
>

But which? Remember, the definition said a SPECIFIED final state, thus
which state is it supposed to go to accept or reject?

You can't do the problem you are propsing until you solve the actual
problem of the Haltig Problem.

yes, you could say there is a problem of the sort they are talking about
to design such a decider, and the fact that THAT second problem is
ill-defined just shows that the original halting problem is proved to be
uncomputable.

You are just showing that you haven't thought this through.

You are just proving your mistakes on the subject.

You don't actually know the meaning of what you are talking about.

On 1/25/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2023 7:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/23 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> One simple comment that comes to mind that points out the error in
>>>>>> your thinking:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The number of possible computing machines is a countable infinite,
>>>>>> because we can express every such machine as a finite string of a
>>>>>> finite symbol set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The number of possible deciders that can be defined is an
>>>>>> UNCOUNTABLE infinite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a very very long debate about this with a PhD computer
>>>>> scientist.
>>>>> When we make one single universal halt decider that correctly
>>>>> determines
>>>>> the halt status of any arbitrary input pair then the countability
>>>>> issue
>>>>> ceases to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, by assuming an impossible machine exists, you can prove a false
>>>> statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> By hypothesizing a single halt decider for the infinite set of arbitrary
>>> finite string pairs countability ceases to be an issue.
>>>
>>
>> So your answer to trying to do the impossible is to just assume you
>> can do something impossible.
>>
>
> *Not at all*
> Under the conditions that I specified countability definitely does
> become moot, thus conclusively proving that countability
> is not always an issue.
>
>

So in a land of fairy dust power magical mythical unicorns, you think
you can count them.

You are just showing how stupid you are.

I though YOU were the one saying you have to start from actual truths
and moved forward. How do you justify hypothesizing something that you
can't figure out how to do, and has been proven to be impossible.

You are admitting you don't believe your own definition of Truth, so
everything you say should be assuemd to be a lie.

On 1/25/2023 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/25/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/25/2023 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/25/23 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their
>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>>
>>> Not by the definition of Conputation theory
>>>
>>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>>>
>>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>>> ill-defined
>>>>
>>>> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947
>>>
>>> Which is from a different field with different definition.
>>>
>>> They are talking about PUZZLES as "Problems".
>>>
>>> You are just showing your ignorance of the topic, an ignorance you
>>> imposed on yourself by refusing to actually trying to learn any of
>>> the topic (or being unable due to mental definciencies)
>>>
>>
>> They are merely saying what I have been saying all along yet applying it
>> simultaneously to all fields.
>
> Nope, it is SPECIFICALLY talking about "Problems" defined as figuring
> out what sequence of transformations from a defined list will take you
> from the specified inital state to a specified final state.
>

Yes and you fail to see that this is exactly a decision problem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

> That isn't the type of "Problem" that the Halting Problem is.
>
If you were correct (you are not correct) that would make the
halting problem ill-defined for more than one reason.

A halt decider begins at its own start state and transforms an arbitrary
finite string pair input into a Boolean value indicated by its final
accept or reject state on the basis of whether or not the first element
of this pair would ever reach its own final state.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/2023 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/25/23 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/25/2023 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/25/23 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2023 7:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of finite
>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their input
>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so fast!  Remember that PO is often fractally wrong.  Not only
>>>>> is he
>>>>> usually wrong about the big picture he's usually wrong about all the
>>>>> details too.  In this case, he's having trouble expressing what he
>>>>> means.  This is actually just another iteration of his "it's an
>>>>> invalid
>>>>> question" stance, badly phrased.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This time www.oxfordreference.com agrees*
>>>>
>>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the initial
>>>>     state or starting position, the allowable operations, and the goal
>>>>     state are clearly specified, and a unique solution can be shown to
>>>>     exist.
>>>>
>>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>>> ill-defined
>>>>
>>>> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But using the definitions of a DIFFERENT Field.
>>
>> Their statement universally applies to all problems including decision
>> problems. I have known this all along, finally the rest of the world is
>> beginning to catch up.
>>
>
> How?
>
> it specificially talks about problems based on starting at a specified
> initial state and getting to a specified final state, using a sequence
> of transfomation from a defined set.
>

That very obviously includes decision problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/25/23 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2023 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2023 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/23 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:48 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 26/01/2023 à 01:40, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 1/25/2023 6:05 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of
>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on their
>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your delusions!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I didn't say that*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is exactly what you wrote. For once it was a correct statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This makes the current definition of the halting problem ill-defined*
>>>>
>>>> Not by the definition of Conputation theory
>>>>
>>>>>     In the study of problem solving, any problem in which the
>>>>>     initial state or starting position, the allowable operations,
>>>>>     and the goal state are clearly specified, and a unique
>>>>>     solution can be shown to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> *a unique solution can be shown to exist* or the problem itself is
>>>>> ill-defined
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121717729;jsessionid=DAD4AA6FA046509B2E4564A52201A947
>>>>
>>>> Which is from a different field with different definition.
>>>>
>>>> They are talking about PUZZLES as "Problems".
>>>>
>>>> You are just showing your ignorance of the topic, an ignorance you
>>>> imposed on yourself by refusing to actually trying to learn any of
>>>> the topic (or being unable due to mental definciencies)
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are merely saying what I have been saying all along yet applying it
>>> simultaneously to all fields.
>>
>> Nope, it is SPECIFICALLY talking about "Problems" defined as figuring
>> out what sequence of transformations from a defined list will take you
>> from the specified inital state to a specified final state.
>>
>
> Yes and you fail to see that this is exactly a decision problem?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Nope, the descion problem is to come up with an algrorithm that
transfers you from ANY initial input to the CORRECT answer for a question.

The "Puzzle" problem is to figgure out the steps to do to go from a
speciric input state to a specific output state.

Most decision problem don't care about the path the decider took being
'unique" just that the final state matches the right answer.

>
>> That isn't the type of "Problem" that the Halting Problem is.
>>
> If you were correct (you are not correct) that would make the
> halting problem ill-defined for more than one reason.

Maybe it is a ill-defined puzzle problem, but that isn't the type of
problem it claims to be

>
> A halt decider begins at its own start state and transforms an arbitrary
> finite string pair input into a Boolean value indicated by its final
> accept or reject state on the basis of whether or not the first element
> of this pair would ever reach its own final state.
>

Which isn't the sort of thing that the Puzzle Problem definition is
supposed to do.

You are just continuing to bury your reputation, proving that you don't
actually understand the words you are using.