Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The most important early product on the way to developing a good product is an imperfect version.


devel / comp.theory / On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

SubjectAuthor
* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
+* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
| `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|  `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
|   `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|    `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
+* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
|+* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
||+* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
|||`- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
||`- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
| `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
|  `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|   `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
+* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
| +* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Python
| |`- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
| `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko
|  `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|   `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko
|    `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|     `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko
|      `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       +* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko
|       |`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       | +- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       | +* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
|       | |`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       | | `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       | |  `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       | |   `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       | |    `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       | `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko
|       |  +* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  |+* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko
|       |  ||`- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  |+* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  || `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||  `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  ||   +* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||   |`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  ||   | `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||   |  `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  ||   |   `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||   |    `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  ||   |     +- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Ben
|       |  ||   |     +- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||   |     `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       |  ||   |      `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||   `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       |  ||    +* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  ||    |`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       |  ||    | `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  ||    `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       |  |`* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       |  | `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mr Flibble
|       |  |  `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       |  `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       |   `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko
|       |    `* On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
|       |     `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Richard Damon
|       `- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)olcott
`- On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)Mikko

Pages:123
On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31645&group=comp.theory#31645

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!news.mind.de!bolzen.all.de!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Message-ID: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 17
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 16:50:32 UTC
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:50:34 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1368
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 5 May 2022 16:50 UTC

This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
word games.

The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
proof [Wikipedia, 2022].

The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that
which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the
decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and
thus invalid.

/Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31667&group=comp.theory#31667

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 13:58:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 18:58:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="919615384a8d329db60bdf86eb51f131";
logging-data="1988"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JBBxM4dAlpL+7XkPeULC7"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uNFYrjJZJaAdNjXQLivKjzF50Ak=
In-Reply-To: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 5 May 2022 18:58 UTC

On 5/5/2022 11:50 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
> word games.
>
> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>
> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that
> which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the
> decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and
> thus invalid.
>
> /Flibble
>

Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same
self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.

For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of what
f predicts g will do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31669&group=comp.theory#31669

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4535d34250bc0a61f89c7a51d1b60747";
logging-data="22773"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cQNNdkMNwuTUlFnvnjspSbx19jC3KAyQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6PphNtpifXyE9bvJ4iE80wsE3To=
sha1:LVak/S2zNcdryppQZ4amGBCfpr0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.c52396f282804b96f083.20220505205129BST.87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 5 May 2022 19:51 UTC

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:

> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
> word games.
>
> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].

Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it,
have you?

--
Ben.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<20220505205238.0000442a@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31670&group=comp.theory#31670

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Message-ID: <20220505205238.0000442a@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 22
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 19:52:38 UTC
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 20:52:38 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1523
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 5 May 2022 19:52 UTC

On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100
Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
> > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to
> > play word games.
> >
> > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
> > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is
> > invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965]
> > that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but
> > from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous)
> > infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>
> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read
> it, have you?
Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey".

/Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31671&group=comp.theory#31671

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 20:56:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4535d34250bc0a61f89c7a51d1b60747";
logging-data="22773"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nUo0xDN8pyHs+NZM624WvHmlbxDzwse0="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nFl5xFTr7LAyozQZ5P9FlM3tpmg=
sha1:QSiSiD9yuWOrwGMbzAeLBSMtdNk=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7dcdac25c0e33d0ad8a6.20220505205628BST.87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 5 May 2022 19:56 UTC

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same
> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.
>
> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
> what f predicts g will do.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How
long has it taken you to get to this point?

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<87wnezn3cm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31673&group=comp.theory#31673

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 21:15:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <87wnezn3cm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<20220505205238.0000442a@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4535d34250bc0a61f89c7a51d1b60747";
logging-data="22773"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VBB/IJgk0lV2MwSBlFzOFsBgvef58kFA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dyt3rG9bQVckI/IWQarNWeQUOyY=
sha1:/QtKxB0jyxvoZlwKU9WD3fowE+o=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.9092ab868cb23818dc08.20220505211505BST.87wnezn3cm.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 5 May 2022 20:15 UTC

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:

> On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100
> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>
>> > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to
>> > play word games.
>> >
>> > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>> > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is
>> > invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965]
>> > that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but
>> > from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous)
>> > infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>>
>> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read
>> it, have you?
>
> Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey".

If you have something to say, say it here.

--
Ben.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<20220505211606.000057ef@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31674&group=comp.theory#31674

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Message-ID: <20220505211606.000057ef@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<20220505205238.0000442a@reddwarf.jmc>
<87wnezn3cm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 32
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 20:16:06 UTC
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 21:16:06 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1852
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 5 May 2022 20:16 UTC

On Thu, 05 May 2022 21:15:05 +0100
Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100
> > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
> >>
> >> > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to
> >> > play word games.
> >> >
> >> > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon
> >> > which other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived)
> >> > is invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey,
> >> > 1965] that arises not from a function call-like infinite
> >> > recursion but from a category error in the form of an invalid
> >> > (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia,
> >> > 2022].
> >>
> >> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't
> >> read it, have you?
> >
> > Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey".
>
> If you have something to say, say it here.
No.

/Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t51fv5$as4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31680&group=comp.theory#31680

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 16:35:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <t51fv5$as4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<20220505205238.0000442a@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 21:35:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="919615384a8d329db60bdf86eb51f131";
logging-data="11140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/aOsIwqAiFypSX/QNlqS6D"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AN88Nx+TpUtMAKFiixGZ3jRFzg4=
In-Reply-To: <20220505205238.0000442a@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 5 May 2022 21:35 UTC

On 5/5/2022 2:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100
> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>
>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to
>>> play word games.
>>>
>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is
>>> invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965]
>>> that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but
>>> from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous)
>>> infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>>
>> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read
>> it, have you?
>
> Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey".
>
> /Flibble
>

ON COMPUTABLE NUMBERS, WITH AN APPLICATION TO
THE ENTSCHEIDUNGSPROBLEM By A. M. TURING. (1936)
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf

It wasn't called the halting problem until 1958
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t51g3l$as4$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31681&group=comp.theory#31681

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 16:37:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <t51g3l$as4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 21:37:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="919615384a8d329db60bdf86eb51f131";
logging-data="11140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wP1zRV5eSKvCY33f3ynrw"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yMXIuAkP54zbkNVs/APfNfNFz+Q=
In-Reply-To: <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 5 May 2022 21:37 UTC

On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
>> word games.
>>
>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
>> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
>> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
>> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
>> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>
> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it,
> have you?
>

Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t51ia8$t3s$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31692&group=comp.theory#31692

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:15:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <t51ia8$t3s$2@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me> <87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 22:15:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fa499fb4eb95ee5c956e821cecab3aa5";
logging-data="29820"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19u276WXjPvMgN+zhMHDtIv"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bBaI2HFDA6cU/xT0wp9+ciXAH4E=
In-Reply-To: <87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 5 May 2022 22:15 UTC

On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same
>> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.
>>
>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>> what f predicts g will do.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How
> long has it taken you to get to this point?
>

H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct
H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct

You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the
mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<877d6zmod9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31708&group=comp.theory#31708

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 02:38:42 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <877d6zmod9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51g3l$as4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8ef68e935a47d9c2c395525a0936b68";
logging-data="4763"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lnxtGFdSCkYLCYMnasmSmRMmpdnT9q7o="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GihExdC+sc6W06MyVaNMlSnNPO4=
sha1:bp4WYLNlAqzXEIQd1mNXpd72NdQ=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.9978f4ddf035135205cb.20220506023842BST.877d6zmod9.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 6 May 2022 01:38 UTC

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>
>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
>>> word games.
>>>
>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
>>> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
>>> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
>>> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
>>> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it,
>> have you?
>
> Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X

What? You cite a paper that says exactly what I am saying.

Of course you are not clear about who you think "modern computer
scientists would tend to disagree" with, but if it were Mr Silly Name
you should have replied to his post not mine.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t51udn$9co$4@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31710&group=comp.theory#31710

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 20:42:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <t51udn$9co$4@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51g3l$as4$2@dont-email.me> <877d6zmod9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 01:42:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fa499fb4eb95ee5c956e821cecab3aa5";
logging-data="9624"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AawvOabOspwKTKrhUJBqY"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2D5IFoJ8+y81RWKXI4bNSa9olec=
In-Reply-To: <877d6zmod9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 6 May 2022 01:42 UTC

On 5/5/2022 8:38 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>>
>>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
>>>> word games.
>>>>
>>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
>>>> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
>>>> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
>>>> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
>>>> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>>> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it,
>>> have you?
>>
>> Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree:
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X
>
> What? You cite a paper that says exactly what I am saying.
>
> Of course you are not clear about who you think "modern computer
> scientists would tend to disagree" with, but if it were Mr Silly Name
> you should have replied to his post not mine.
>

Everyone understands that Turing's 1936 paper establishes the halting
theorem.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<871qx7mo5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31711&group=comp.theory#31711

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 02:43:25 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <871qx7mo5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me> <87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51ia8$t3s$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8ef68e935a47d9c2c395525a0936b68";
logging-data="4763"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Cmx0HkYtMPE+BQyBLUJoJ+AWY2zjFCCE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:taPymXkNP+B1Lx/ObSiL4DD/oUA=
sha1:rWk/7fjkGZ7UvGxi+C4fC/N8NSw=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.225031f8dc45801609b3.20220506024325BST.871qx7mo5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 6 May 2022 01:43 UTC

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same
>>> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>> what f predicts g will do.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>> So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How
>> long has it taken you to get to this point?
>
> H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct
> H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct
>
> You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the
> mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect.

Any conclusion I can form this is unkind. You are either dishonest and
are intentionally misrepresenting what other people write, or you are so
lost that even after 18 years you don't know what that halting problem
is.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t51vep$gnk$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31715&group=comp.theory#31715

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 20:59:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <t51vep$gnk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me> <87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51ia8$t3s$2@dont-email.me> <871qx7mo5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 01:59:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fa499fb4eb95ee5c956e821cecab3aa5";
logging-data="17140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1800ByEVCsHZOHIO/IQqkaz"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v6IjHvdQY8wEcl9tSYsHS561mHU=
In-Reply-To: <871qx7mo5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 6 May 2022 01:59 UTC

On 5/5/2022 8:43 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same
>>>> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>> what f predicts g will do.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>> So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How
>>> long has it taken you to get to this point?
>>
>> H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct
>> H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct
>>
>> You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the
>> mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect.
>
> Any conclusion I can form this is unkind. You are either dishonest and
> are intentionally misrepresenting what other people write, or you are so
> lost that even after 18 years you don't know what that halting problem
> is.
>

I am not trying to be unkind. When people happily disagree with verified
facts I construe that as playing head games for sadistic pleasure. Those
people really need a strong (at least metaphorical) slap in the face.

It is a proven fact that H(P,P) and H1(P,P) do correctly compute the
mapping from their input parameters to the halt status specified by
these inputs.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31721&group=comp.theory#31721

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 22:33:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2080
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 6 May 2022 02:33 UTC

On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
> word games.
>
> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>
> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that
> which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the
> decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and
> thus invalid.
>
> /Flibble
>

The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the program
doesn't HAVE ANY recursion.

The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if anything
your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it.

YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to
decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<87mtfv9xid.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31735&group=comp.theory#31735

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 03:59:38 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <87mtfv9xid.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51g3l$as4$2@dont-email.me> <877d6zmod9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51udn$9co$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8ef68e935a47d9c2c395525a0936b68";
logging-data="32354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VtCcJnDPkXF7HNGopv5JJ6W5N1XMwBQ4="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6dt7wVc7Jje0Rw+L/FSixpmSihg=
sha1:yEMFvyHK3uysXnWMQVhrUn2ibzo=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.6830a8169150581cad63.20220506035938BST.87mtfv9xid.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 6 May 2022 02:59 UTC

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/5/2022 8:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
>>>>> word games.
>>>>>
>>>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>>>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
>>>>> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
>>>>> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
>>>>> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
>>>>> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>>>> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it,
>>>> have you?
>>>
>>> Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree:
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X
>>
>> What? You cite a paper that says exactly what I am saying.
>>
>> Of course you are not clear about who you think "modern computer
>> scientists would tend to disagree" with, but if it were Mr Silly Name
>> you should have replied to his post not mine.
>
> Everyone understands that Turing's 1936 paper establishes the halting
> theorem.

For some meanings of "establishes" they do indeed. I'm not sure what or
who you think "modern computer scientists would tend to disagree" with
anymore.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<87h7639x2y.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31736&group=comp.theory#31736

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 04:08:53 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <87h7639x2y.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me> <87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51ia8$t3s$2@dont-email.me> <871qx7mo5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t51vep$gnk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8ef68e935a47d9c2c395525a0936b68";
logging-data="32354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1890cKKIduibdKShcUSZmJIsbAt04AmYtI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UJcH8mCTHtoAr/JQUZI+i0Z8PdA=
sha1:CUpwQBrr5WDOSc2Q1urpMG0uCEM=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.876e82fa3275dfe536c6.20220506040853BST.87h7639x2y.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 6 May 2022 03:08 UTC

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/5/2022 8:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same
>>>>> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>>> what f predicts g will do.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>> So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How
>>>> long has it taken you to get to this point?
>>>
>>> H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct
>>> H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct
>>>
>>> You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the
>>> mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect.
>>
>> Any conclusion I can form this is unkind. You are either dishonest and
>> are intentionally misrepresenting what other people write, or you are so
>> lost that even after 18 years you don't know what that halting problem
>> is.
>
> I am not trying to be unkind.

I meant that I had no option but to be unkind. I can't see any
interpretation of your post that does show you up as wither dishonest or
ignorant.

> When people happily disagree with verified facts I construe that as
> playing head games for sadistic pleasure. Those people really need a
> strong (at least metaphorical) slap in the face.
>
> It is a proven fact that H(P,P) and H1(P,P) do correctly compute the
> mapping from their input parameters to the halt status specified by
> these inputs.

No it's not. You have not even stated what this new mantra of yours
means. What's not in dispute is that H(P,P) == false even though P(P)
halts. You dispute that this means that H is not a halt decoder (for
this one case) because, I think, you claim that we can't legitimately
specify that H(X,Y) should report on the halting of X(Y). You could
have said that 18 years ago, but then we'd have ignored you.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t538f0$dj5$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31757&group=comp.theory#31757

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 16:39:44 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <t538f0$dj5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5574b30bf5ce86abab3a64838ccbeb32";
logging-data="13925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SaTDopuhjv0hr5yLi52Rs"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k8Um0kB1SdJ0gcsOMphSD9hN738=
 by: Mikko - Fri, 6 May 2022 13:39 UTC

On 2022-05-05 16:50:34 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play
> word games.
>
> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid
> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not
> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error
> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the
> proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>
> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that
> which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the
> decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and
> thus invalid.

That message claims that there is a category error in a sentence that
is not quoted. But because no sentence is quoted everything that is
said is daid only about nothing. Which means that nothing is said.

Mikko

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31760&group=comp.theory#31760

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Message-ID: <20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 45
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 14:02:52 UTC
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 15:02:53 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2456
 by: Mr Flibble - Fri, 6 May 2022 14:02 UTC

On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:33:36 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to
> > play word games.
> >
> > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
> > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is
> > invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965]
> > that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but
> > from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous)
> > infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
> >
> > The categories involved in the category error are the decider and
> > that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to
> > conflate the decider with that which is being decided are
> > infinitely recursive and thus invalid.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the
> program doesn't HAVE ANY recursion.

The category error (as in invalid infinite recursion) is in the
definition of the proof itself; we are not talking about a function
call-like infinite recursion executed at runtime.

>
> The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if
> anything your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it.

The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due to
the category error in the definition of the proof.

>
> YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to
> decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have.

Nope. The problem here is that you are a clueless wonder, as Olcott
would put it.

/Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t53ao6$33j$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31761&group=comp.theory#31761

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 16:18:44 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t53ao6$33j$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad>
<20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="3187"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: fr
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Fri, 6 May 2022 14:18 UTC

Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:33:36 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to
>>> play word games.
>>>
>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is
>>> invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965]
>>> that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but
>>> from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous)
>>> infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>>>
>>> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and
>>> that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to
>>> conflate the decider with that which is being decided are
>>> infinitely recursive and thus invalid.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the
>> program doesn't HAVE ANY recursion.
>
> The category error (as in invalid infinite recursion) is in the
> definition of the proof itself; we are not talking about a function
> call-like infinite recursion executed at runtime.
>
>>
>> The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if
>> anything your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it.
>
> The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due to
> the category error in the definition of the proof.
>
>>
>> YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to
>> decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have.
>
> Nope. The problem here is that you are a clueless wonder, as Olcott
> would put it.
>
> /Flibble
>

https://xkcd.com/386/

Ben Bacarisse is a real mathematician, you are the random guy spouting
nonsense on the Internet. Nobody cares of your shit.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t53ju8$ens$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31769&group=comp.theory#31769

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 11:55:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <t53ju8$ens$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad>
<20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc> <t53ao6$33j$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 16:55:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fa499fb4eb95ee5c956e821cecab3aa5";
logging-data="15100"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195lfNsoTB3qJpjMFqznRj0"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WSSIByvO+MFGsGnnjy82zIvGNt0=
In-Reply-To: <t53ao6$33j$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 6 May 2022 16:55 UTC

On 5/6/2022 9:18 AM, Python wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:33:36 -0400
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to
>>>> play word games.
>>>>
>>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which
>>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is
>>>> invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965]
>>>> that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but
>>>> from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous)
>>>> infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022].
>>>>
>>>> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and
>>>> that which is being decided.  Currently extant  attempts to
>>>> conflate the decider with that which is being decided are
>>>> infinitely recursive and thus invalid.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the
>>> program doesn't HAVE ANY recursion.
>>
>> The category error (as in invalid infinite recursion) is in the
>> definition of the proof itself; we are not talking about a function
>> call-like infinite recursion executed at runtime.
>>
>>>
>>> The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if
>>> anything your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it.
>>
>> The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due to
>> the category error in the definition of the proof.
>>
>>>
>>> YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to
>>> decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have.
>>
>> Nope. The problem here is that you are a clueless wonder, as Olcott
>> would put it.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> https://xkcd.com/386/
>
> Ben Bacarisse is a real mathematician, you are the random guy spouting
> nonsense on the Internet. Nobody cares of your shit.

Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)).

Ben said that G is provable not knowing that the core of the 1931 Gödel
incompleteness theorem is that G is unprovable.

Gödel says:
We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t55fhq$u5e$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31845&group=comp.theory#31845

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 12:52:58 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <t55fhq$u5e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad> <20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="50deec36a35ae6baa897166f14959035";
logging-data="30894"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TEZcBGEeMPE2FabHzub62"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5XyHIFVMBc6cLElSDTpT/IBq+Fs=
 by: Mikko - Sat, 7 May 2022 09:52 UTC

On 2022-05-06 14:02:53 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due to
> the category error in the definition of the proof.

An error in the definition of the proof does not prevent compilation
and execution of the program.

Mikko

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<20220507134250.00007acc@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31848&group=comp.theory#31848

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Message-ID: <20220507134250.00007acc@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad>
<20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc>
<t55fhq$u5e$1@dont-email.me>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 12:42:48 UTC
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 13:42:50 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1548
 by: Mr Flibble - Sat, 7 May 2022 12:42 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:52:58 +0300
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2022-05-06 14:02:53 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>
> > The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due
> > to the category error in the definition of the proof.
>
> An error in the definition of the proof does not prevent compilation
> and execution of the program.

In this case the error in the definition of the proof does prevent
compilation unless the decider is made part of the program that is
being decided in which case we get a function call-like infinite
recursion instead (as described by Pete Olcott) and we are attempting
(and failing) to decide if a procedure halts rather than if a program
halts.

/Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<t55u0r$7lf$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31849&group=comp.theory#31849

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 16:59:55 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <t55u0r$7lf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> <5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad> <20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc> <t55fhq$u5e$1@dont-email.me> <20220507134250.00007acc@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7c85f0eef4699b5c6815b2cf19a6571b";
logging-data="7855"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ca6EZddBp6AR0mdRk5aJF"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9IQNP6aV4gj+rEiV6r2HLH0FAeQ=
 by: Mikko - Sat, 7 May 2022 13:59 UTC

On 2022-05-07 12:42:50 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:52:58 +0300
> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-06 14:02:53 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>
>>> The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due
>>> to the category error in the definition of the proof.
>>
>> An error in the definition of the proof does not prevent compilation
>> and execution of the program.
>
> In this case the error in the definition of the proof

No part of the proof is identified as errorneous, so the rest
is irrelevant. Anyway,

> does prevent compilation unless

There is no option here, so the "unless" is void.

> the decider is made part of the program that is being decided

The decider is made a part of the program discussed in the proof.

> in which case we get a function call-like infinite recursion
> instead

We get or we don't get, depending on how the halt decider candidate
attempts to decide.

> (as described by Pete Olcott) and we are attempting (and failing)
> to decide if a procedure halts rather than if a program halts.

In any case, the decider candidate fails to give the correct answer,
and therefore is not a halt decider. Note that this is correctly
inferred in the proof. Therefore either the conclusion of the proof
is correct or you are wrong.

Mikko

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

<20220507150612.00003fab@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31850&group=comp.theory#31850

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)
Message-ID: <20220507150612.00003fab@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc>
<5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad>
<20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc>
<t55fhq$u5e$1@dont-email.me>
<20220507134250.00007acc@reddwarf.jmc>
<t55u0r$7lf$1@dont-email.me>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 14:06:10 UTC
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 15:06:12 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2472
 by: Mr Flibble - Sat, 7 May 2022 14:06 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 16:59:55 +0300
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2022-05-07 12:42:50 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>
> > On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:52:58 +0300
> > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-05-06 14:02:53 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
> >>
> >>> The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due
> >>> to the category error in the definition of the proof.
> >>
> >> An error in the definition of the proof does not prevent
> >> compilation and execution of the program.
> >
> > In this case the error in the definition of the proof
>
> No part of the proof is identified as errorneous, so the rest
> is irrelevant. Anyway,
>
> > does prevent compilation unless
>
> There is no option here, so the "unless" is void.
>
> > the decider is made part of the program that is being decided
>
> The decider is made a part of the program discussed in the proof.
>
> > in which case we get a function call-like infinite recursion
> > instead
>
> We get or we don't get, depending on how the halt decider candidate
> attempts to decide.
>
> > (as described by Pete Olcott) and we are attempting (and failing)
> > to decide if a procedure halts rather than if a program halts.
>
> In any case, the decider candidate fails to give the correct answer,
> and therefore is not a halt decider. Note that this is correctly
> inferred in the proof. Therefore either the conclusion of the proof
> is correct or you are wrong.

No answer is ever given due to the infinite recursion.

/Flibble

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor