On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:

>
> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>
>

Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its simulation.

Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
because to think of an H doing something different than what H actually
does is just a falsehood.

You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you are
guilty of the ignrance, since you have volition, which H doesn't.

On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>
>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>
>>
>
>
> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
> simulation.
>
> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
> because to think of an H doing something different than what H actually
> does is just a falsehood.
>
> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you are
> guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H doesn't.

The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY kind
of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only Mr Flibble
has created a valid simulating halt decider with its ternary halting result.

/Flibble

On 3/9/2023 11:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>> simulation.
>>
>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
>> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
>> because to think of an H doing something different than what H
>> actually does is just a falsehood.
>>
>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you are
>> guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H doesn't.
>
> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY kind
> of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only Mr Flibble
> has created a valid simulating halt decider with its ternary halting
> result.
>
> /Flibble

I created the notion of a simulating halt decider in this forum
On 3/14/2017 at 9:05 AM

Message-ID: <e18ff0a9-7f9d-4799-9d13-55d021afaa82@googlegroups.com>

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

On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>> simulation.
>>
>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
>> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
>> because to think of an H doing something different than what H
>> actually does is just a falsehood.
>>
>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you are
>> guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H doesn't.
>
> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY kind
> of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only Mr Flibble
> has created a valid simulating halt decider with its ternary halting
> result.
>
> /Flibble

But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability theory, so
just because they are something that can be made, they aren't the things
that they need to be.

You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but that
doesn't solve the problem needed.

Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in enough
detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in your problem.

It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose halting
behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either Halt or they
Don't. All you are trying to do is define your decider to be something
other than a "machine" so it can do something a machine can't, but that
puts it outside the scope of the problem.

On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must
>>>> abort
>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
>>> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
>>> because to think of an H doing something different than what H
>>> actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>
>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you are
>>> guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H doesn't.
>>
>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
>> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY
>> kind of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only Mr
>> Flibble has created a valid simulating halt decider with its ternary
>> halting result.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability theory, so
> just because they are something that can be made, they aren't the things
> that they need to be.
>
> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but that
> doesn't solve the problem needed.
>
> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in enough
> detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in your problem.
>
> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
> Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose halting
> behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either Halt or they
> Don't. All you are trying to do is define your decider to be something
> other than a "machine" so it can do something a machine can't, but that
> puts it outside the scope of the problem.

Nope, you are mistaken. The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is the ONLY
valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus recognizing the
contradiction that is at the heart of the halting problem AS DEFINED.

/Flibble

On 3/10/23 6:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must
>>>>> abort
>>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution
>>>>> it is
>>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>>>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>>>> simulation.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
>>>> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
>>>> because to think of an H doing something different than what H
>>>> actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>>
>>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you are
>>>> guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H doesn't.
>>>
>>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
>>> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY
>>> kind of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only Mr
>>> Flibble has created a valid simulating halt decider with its ternary
>>> halting result.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability theory,
>> so just because they are something that can be made, they aren't the
>> things that they need to be.
>>
>> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but that
>> doesn't solve the problem needed.
>>
>> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in enough
>> detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in your problem.
>>
>> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
>> Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose halting
>> behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either Halt or they
>> Don't. All you are trying to do is define your decider to be something
>> other than a "machine" so it can do something a machine can't, but
>> that puts it outside the scope of the problem.
>
> Nope, you are mistaken.  The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is the ONLY
> valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus recognizing the
> contradiction that is at the heart of the halting problem AS DEFINED.
>
> /Flibble

But Halting isn't a ternary property. A GIVEN machine will either halt
or it doesn't.

For a given DEFINED H, which will have a defined answer for H(P,P), the
behavior of P(P) will either be Halting or non-Halting. H will just be
wrong.

Thus "Pathological" or "Not A Program" is NEVER an answer.

P is ALWAYS a program if H is, and if H isn't a program, it isn't a
solution to the problem, as the problem is to define a PROGRAM to decide.

On 10/03/2023 12:05, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/10/23 6:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must
>>>>>> abort
>>>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>>>>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
>>>>> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
>>>>> because to think of an H doing something different than what H
>>>>> actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you
>>>>> are guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
>>>> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY
>>>> kind of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only Mr
>>>> Flibble has created a valid simulating halt decider with its ternary
>>>> halting result.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability theory,
>>> so just because they are something that can be made, they aren't the
>>> things that they need to be.
>>>
>>> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but that
>>> doesn't solve the problem needed.
>>>
>>> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in
>>> enough detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in your
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
>>> Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose halting
>>> behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either Halt or they
>>> Don't. All you are trying to do is define your decider to be
>>> something other than a "machine" so it can do something a machine
>>> can't, but that puts it outside the scope of the problem.
>>
>> Nope, you are mistaken.  The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is the
>> ONLY valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus recognizing
>> the contradiction that is at the heart of the halting problem AS DEFINED.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> But Halting isn't a ternary property. A GIVEN machine will either halt
> or it doesn't.
>
> For a given DEFINED H, which will have a defined answer for H(P,P), the
> behavior of P(P) will either be Halting or non-Halting. H will just be
> wrong.
>
> Thus "Pathological" or "Not A Program" is NEVER an answer.
>
> P is ALWAYS a program if H is, and if H isn't a program, it isn't a
> solution to the problem, as the problem is to define a PROGRAM to decide.

Not at all. The contradiction at the heart of the halting problem *is*
defining whether pathological input halts and such input neither halts
nor doesn't halt so the *only* sensible result is that the input is
invalid (the third result that Mr Flibble has uniquely identified).
This contradiction (also known as "The Impossible Program" [Strachey
1965]) is a category error which would manifest as infinite recursion in
a SHD that has a binary rather than ternary result. Olcott is wrong to
map a ternary result to a binary result as information is lost (that
information being that the input is invalid).

/Flibble

On 3/10/23 7:43 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 10/03/2023 12:05, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/10/23 6:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it
>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>>>>>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
>>>>>> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
>>>>>> because to think of an H doing something different than what H
>>>>>> actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you
>>>>>> are guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H
>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
>>>>> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY
>>>>> kind of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only Mr
>>>>> Flibble has created a valid simulating halt decider with its
>>>>> ternary halting result.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability
>>>> theory, so just because they are something that can be made, they
>>>> aren't the things that they need to be.
>>>>
>>>> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but that
>>>> doesn't solve the problem needed.
>>>>
>>>> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in
>>>> enough detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in your
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
>>>> Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose halting
>>>> behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either Halt or
>>>> they Don't. All you are trying to do is define your decider to be
>>>> something other than a "machine" so it can do something a machine
>>>> can't, but that puts it outside the scope of the problem.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are mistaken.  The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is the
>>> ONLY valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus recognizing
>>> the contradiction that is at the heart of the halting problem AS
>>> DEFINED.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> But Halting isn't a ternary property. A GIVEN machine will either halt
>> or it doesn't.
>>
>> For a given DEFINED H, which will have a defined answer for H(P,P),
>> the behavior of P(P) will either be Halting or non-Halting. H will
>> just be wrong.
>>
>> Thus "Pathological" or "Not A Program" is NEVER an answer.
>>
>> P is ALWAYS a program if H is, and if H isn't a program, it isn't a
>> solution to the problem, as the problem is to define a PROGRAM to decide.
>
> Not at all.  The contradiction at the heart of the halting problem *is*
> defining whether pathological input halts and such input neither halts
> nor doesn't halt so the *only* sensible result is that the input is
> invalid (the third result that Mr Flibble has uniquely identified). This
> contradiction (also known as "The Impossible Program" [Strachey 1965])
> is a category error which would manifest as infinite recursion in a SHD
> that has a binary rather than ternary result.  Olcott is wrong to map a
> ternary result to a binary result as information is lost (that
> information being that the input is invalid).
>
> /Flibble

There is no contradiction at the hear of the Halting Problem.

The issue is in your understanding of it.

A Program is a definite sequence of instructions which are applied to an
input.

A Correct Decider will always give the correct answer define for the
every input.

For a Halt Decider, that is if the program described will halt or not.

The "Pathological" Program is built from the Halt Decider Program by
strictly valid constructions steps, and thus IS a program if the claimed
Halt Decider was one.

All the arguements that both you and Olcott make are based on an
assumption that you get to try to tweek the decider program based on the
input, but that is a false assumption. The requirement is that knowing
the requirement, create a single program that will be able to handle
EVERY input.

Thus, the "Pathology" you detect, is something that prevents you from
creating the halt decider in the first place, which does mean that such
a decider can not be created.

Any decider you try to create, is proved incorrect.

Yes, the SHD that doesn't abort gets stuck in an infinite recursion,
which makes it not a correct decider. Since that is a different decider
than the version that does abort, and thus the input is a different
input, that doesn't say anything about the validity of the new decider
doing its abort.

When the new decider aborts the simulation and returns non-halting, the
program will halt, so that answer was just wrong.

If you decider detects this sort of program and says "Pathological" the
program will still either Halt or not (depending on what we decide the
"Pathological" program will do when given the NaP answer), and thus the
correct answer will be Either Halting or Non-Halting, which would also
be the required correct answer if we gave the input to a different halt
decider (where pathological can't be the correct answer, because it
doesn't use THAT halt decider).

Since ALL implementaitons of a "Foo" deciders need to give the same
answer, that of the "Foo" mapping, all Halt Deciders need to also give
the same answer, so "NaP" can literally only be a correct answer if the
input is actually NOT a program, so not a program for ANY Halt Decider,
which means that the original Halt Decider was just determined to fail
to meet the requirements of being a Program.

On 10/03/2023 13:11, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/10/23 7:43 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 10/03/2023 12:05, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/10/23 6:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it
>>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite
>>>>>>>> execution it is
>>>>>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>>>>>>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
>>>>>>> intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not
>>>>>>> true, because to think of an H doing something different than
>>>>>>> what H actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you
>>>>>>> are guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H
>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
>>>>>> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the ONLY
>>>>>> kind of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and only
>>>>>> Mr Flibble has created a valid simulating halt decider with its
>>>>>> ternary halting result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability
>>>>> theory, so just because they are something that can be made, they
>>>>> aren't the things that they need to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but that
>>>>> doesn't solve the problem needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in
>>>>> enough detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in your
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
>>>>> Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose
>>>>> halting behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either
>>>>> Halt or they Don't. All you are trying to do is define your decider
>>>>> to be something other than a "machine" so it can do something a
>>>>> machine can't, but that puts it outside the scope of the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you are mistaken.  The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is the
>>>> ONLY valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus
>>>> recognizing the contradiction that is at the heart of the halting
>>>> problem AS DEFINED.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> But Halting isn't a ternary property. A GIVEN machine will either
>>> halt or it doesn't.
>>>
>>> For a given DEFINED H, which will have a defined answer for H(P,P),
>>> the behavior of P(P) will either be Halting or non-Halting. H will
>>> just be wrong.
>>>
>>> Thus "Pathological" or "Not A Program" is NEVER an answer.
>>>
>>> P is ALWAYS a program if H is, and if H isn't a program, it isn't a
>>> solution to the problem, as the problem is to define a PROGRAM to
>>> decide.
>>
>> Not at all.  The contradiction at the heart of the halting problem
>> *is* defining whether pathological input halts and such input neither
>> halts nor doesn't halt so the *only* sensible result is that the input
>> is invalid (the third result that Mr Flibble has uniquely identified).
>> This contradiction (also known as "The Impossible Program" [Strachey
>> 1965]) is a category error which would manifest as infinite recursion
>> in a SHD that has a binary rather than ternary result.  Olcott is
>> wrong to map a ternary result to a binary result as information is
>> lost (that information being that the input is invalid).
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> There is no contradiction at the hear of the Halting Problem.
>
> The issue is in your understanding of it.
>
> A Program is a definite sequence of instructions which are applied to an
> input.
>
> A Correct Decider will always give the correct answer define for the
> every input.
>
> For a Halt Decider, that is if the program described will halt or not.
>
> The "Pathological" Program is built from the Halt Decider Program by
> strictly valid constructions steps, and thus IS a program if the claimed
> Halt Decider was one.
>
> All the arguements that both you and Olcott make are based on an
> assumption that you get to try to tweek the decider program based on the
> input, but that is a false assumption. The requirement is that knowing
> the requirement, create a single program that will be able to handle
> EVERY input.
>
> Thus, the "Pathology" you detect, is something that prevents you from
> creating the halt decider in the first place, which does mean that such
> a decider can not be created.
>
> Any decider you try to create, is proved incorrect.
>
> Yes, the SHD that doesn't abort gets stuck in an infinite recursion,
> which makes it not a correct decider. Since that is a different decider
> than the version that does abort, and thus the input is a different
> input, that doesn't say anything about the validity of the new decider
> doing its abort.
>
> When the new decider aborts the simulation and returns non-halting, the
> program will halt, so that answer was just wrong.
>
> If you decider detects this sort of program and says "Pathological" the
> program will still either Halt or not (depending on what we decide the
> "Pathological" program will do when given the NaP answer), and thus the
> correct answer will be Either Halting or Non-Halting, which would also
> be the required correct answer if we gave the input to a different halt
> decider (where pathological can't be the correct answer, because it
> doesn't use THAT halt decider).
>
> Since ALL implementaitons of a "Foo" deciders need to give the same
> answer, that of the "Foo" mapping, all Halt Deciders need to also give
> the same answer, so "NaP" can literally only be a correct answer if the
> input is actually NOT a program, so not a program for ANY Halt Decider,
> which means that the original Halt Decider was just determined to fail
> to meet the requirements of being a Program.

Not at all. [Strachey 1965] (The Impossible Program) is a category
error and this error is at heart of the halting problem definition. Mr
Flibble is the only person to have ever solved the halting problem.

/Flibble

On 3/10/23 9:01 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 10/03/2023 13:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/10/23 7:43 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2023 12:05, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/23 6:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it
>>>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite
>>>>>>>>> execution it is
>>>>>>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>>>>>>>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its
>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of
>>>>>>>> your intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is
>>>>>>>> not true, because to think of an H doing something different
>>>>>>>> than what H actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you
>>>>>>>> are guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which H
>>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the
>>>>>>> ONLY kind of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and
>>>>>>> only Mr Flibble has created a valid simulating halt decider with
>>>>>>> its ternary halting result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability
>>>>>> theory, so just because they are something that can be made, they
>>>>>> aren't the things that they need to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but that
>>>>>> doesn't solve the problem needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in
>>>>>> enough detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in
>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
>>>>>> Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose
>>>>>> halting behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either
>>>>>> Halt or they Don't. All you are trying to do is define your
>>>>>> decider to be something other than a "machine" so it can do
>>>>>> something a machine can't, but that puts it outside the scope of
>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you are mistaken.  The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is the
>>>>> ONLY valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus
>>>>> recognizing the contradiction that is at the heart of the halting
>>>>> problem AS DEFINED.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> But Halting isn't a ternary property. A GIVEN machine will either
>>>> halt or it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> For a given DEFINED H, which will have a defined answer for H(P,P),
>>>> the behavior of P(P) will either be Halting or non-Halting. H will
>>>> just be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thus "Pathological" or "Not A Program" is NEVER an answer.
>>>>
>>>> P is ALWAYS a program if H is, and if H isn't a program, it isn't a
>>>> solution to the problem, as the problem is to define a PROGRAM to
>>>> decide.
>>>
>>> Not at all.  The contradiction at the heart of the halting problem
>>> *is* defining whether pathological input halts and such input neither
>>> halts nor doesn't halt so the *only* sensible result is that the
>>> input is invalid (the third result that Mr Flibble has uniquely
>>> identified). This contradiction (also known as "The Impossible
>>> Program" [Strachey 1965]) is a category error which would manifest as
>>> infinite recursion in a SHD that has a binary rather than ternary
>>> result.  Olcott is wrong to map a ternary result to a binary result
>>> as information is lost (that information being that the input is
>>> invalid).
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> There is no contradiction at the hear of the Halting Problem.
>>
>> The issue is in your understanding of it.
>>
>> A Program is a definite sequence of instructions which are applied to
>> an input.
>>
>> A Correct Decider will always give the correct answer define for the
>> every input.
>>
>> For a Halt Decider, that is if the program described will halt or not.
>>
>> The "Pathological" Program is built from the Halt Decider Program by
>> strictly valid constructions steps, and thus IS a program if the
>> claimed Halt Decider was one.
>>
>> All the arguements that both you and Olcott make are based on an
>> assumption that you get to try to tweek the decider program based on
>> the input, but that is a false assumption. The requirement is that
>> knowing the requirement, create a single program that will be able to
>> handle EVERY input.
>>
>> Thus, the "Pathology" you detect, is something that prevents you from
>> creating the halt decider in the first place, which does mean that
>> such a decider can not be created.
>>
>> Any decider you try to create, is proved incorrect.
>>
>> Yes, the SHD that doesn't abort gets stuck in an infinite recursion,
>> which makes it not a correct decider. Since that is a different
>> decider than the version that does abort, and thus the input is a
>> different input, that doesn't say anything about the validity of the
>> new decider doing its abort.
>>
>> When the new decider aborts the simulation and returns non-halting,
>> the program will halt, so that answer was just wrong.
>>
>> If you decider detects this sort of program and says "Pathological"
>> the program will still either Halt or not (depending on what we decide
>> the "Pathological" program will do when given the NaP answer), and
>> thus the correct answer will be Either Halting or Non-Halting, which
>> would also be the required correct answer if we gave the input to a
>> different halt decider (where pathological can't be the correct
>> answer, because it doesn't use THAT halt decider).
>>
>> Since ALL implementaitons of a "Foo" deciders need to give the same
>> answer, that of the "Foo" mapping, all Halt Deciders need to also give
>> the same answer, so "NaP" can literally only be a correct answer if
>> the input is actually NOT a program, so not a program for ANY Halt
>> Decider, which means that the original Halt Decider was just
>> determined to fail to meet the requirements of being a Program.
>
> Not at all.  [Strachey 1965] (The Impossible Program) is a category
> error and this error is at heart of the halting problem definition.  Mr
> Flibble is the only person to have ever solved the halting problem.
>
> /Flibble

Nope, just your lies about stuff you dont understand.

The category of the inputs to H are PROGRAMS and D is a PROGRAM, so not
a category error.

And, you are still LYING about the definition of the Halting Problem,
confusing the discusion of the proof with the definition of it.

Mr Flibble is just one of many people who think they are smarter than
the actual Geniuses of the world, when they are actually just showing
their stupidity.

On 10/03/2023 23:37, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/10/23 9:01 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 10/03/2023 13:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/10/23 7:43 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2023 12:05, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/10/23 6:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it
>>>>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite
>>>>>>>>>> execution it is
>>>>>>>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
>>>>>>>>> resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort
>>>>>>>>> its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of
>>>>>>>>> your intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is
>>>>>>>>> not true, because to think of an H doing something different
>>>>>>>>> than what H actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but
>>>>>>>>> you are guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition, which
>>>>>>>>> H doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property of
>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are the
>>>>>>>> ONLY kind of halt decider that can solve the halting problem and
>>>>>>>> only Mr Flibble has created a valid simulating halt decider with
>>>>>>>> its ternary halting result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability
>>>>>>> theory, so just because they are something that can be made, they
>>>>>>> aren't the things that they need to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but
>>>>>>> that doesn't solve the problem needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in
>>>>>>> enough detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in
>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of Compuational
>>>>>>> Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a machine whose
>>>>>>> halting behavior is "Pathological". All such machine will either
>>>>>>> Halt or they Don't. All you are trying to do is define your
>>>>>>> decider to be something other than a "machine" so it can do
>>>>>>> something a machine can't, but that puts it outside the scope of
>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you are mistaken.  The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is
>>>>>> the ONLY valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus
>>>>>> recognizing the contradiction that is at the heart of the halting
>>>>>> problem AS DEFINED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> But Halting isn't a ternary property. A GIVEN machine will either
>>>>> halt or it doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a given DEFINED H, which will have a defined answer for H(P,P),
>>>>> the behavior of P(P) will either be Halting or non-Halting. H will
>>>>> just be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus "Pathological" or "Not A Program" is NEVER an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> P is ALWAYS a program if H is, and if H isn't a program, it isn't a
>>>>> solution to the problem, as the problem is to define a PROGRAM to
>>>>> decide.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.  The contradiction at the heart of the halting problem
>>>> *is* defining whether pathological input halts and such input
>>>> neither halts nor doesn't halt so the *only* sensible result is that
>>>> the input is invalid (the third result that Mr Flibble has uniquely
>>>> identified). This contradiction (also known as "The Impossible
>>>> Program" [Strachey 1965]) is a category error which would manifest
>>>> as infinite recursion in a SHD that has a binary rather than ternary
>>>> result.  Olcott is wrong to map a ternary result to a binary result
>>>> as information is lost (that information being that the input is
>>>> invalid).
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> There is no contradiction at the hear of the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>> The issue is in your understanding of it.
>>>
>>> A Program is a definite sequence of instructions which are applied to
>>> an input.
>>>
>>> A Correct Decider will always give the correct answer define for the
>>> every input.
>>>
>>> For a Halt Decider, that is if the program described will halt or not.
>>>
>>> The "Pathological" Program is built from the Halt Decider Program by
>>> strictly valid constructions steps, and thus IS a program if the
>>> claimed Halt Decider was one.
>>>
>>> All the arguements that both you and Olcott make are based on an
>>> assumption that you get to try to tweek the decider program based on
>>> the input, but that is a false assumption. The requirement is that
>>> knowing the requirement, create a single program that will be able to
>>> handle EVERY input.
>>>
>>> Thus, the "Pathology" you detect, is something that prevents you from
>>> creating the halt decider in the first place, which does mean that
>>> such a decider can not be created.
>>>
>>> Any decider you try to create, is proved incorrect.
>>>
>>> Yes, the SHD that doesn't abort gets stuck in an infinite recursion,
>>> which makes it not a correct decider. Since that is a different
>>> decider than the version that does abort, and thus the input is a
>>> different input, that doesn't say anything about the validity of the
>>> new decider doing its abort.
>>>
>>> When the new decider aborts the simulation and returns non-halting,
>>> the program will halt, so that answer was just wrong.
>>>
>>> If you decider detects this sort of program and says "Pathological"
>>> the program will still either Halt or not (depending on what we
>>> decide the "Pathological" program will do when given the NaP answer),
>>> and thus the correct answer will be Either Halting or Non-Halting,
>>> which would also be the required correct answer if we gave the input
>>> to a different halt decider (where pathological can't be the correct
>>> answer, because it doesn't use THAT halt decider).
>>>
>>> Since ALL implementaitons of a "Foo" deciders need to give the same
>>> answer, that of the "Foo" mapping, all Halt Deciders need to also
>>> give the same answer, so "NaP" can literally only be a correct answer
>>> if the input is actually NOT a program, so not a program for ANY Halt
>>> Decider, which means that the original Halt Decider was just
>>> determined to fail to meet the requirements of being a Program.
>>
>> Not at all.  [Strachey 1965] (The Impossible Program) is a category
>> error and this error is at heart of the halting problem definition.
>> Mr Flibble is the only person to have ever solved the halting problem.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> Nope, just your lies about stuff you dont understand.
>
> The category of the inputs to H are PROGRAMS and D is a PROGRAM, so not
> a category error.
>
> And, you are still LYING about the definition of the Halting Problem,
> confusing the discusion of the proof with the definition of it.
>
> Mr Flibble is just one of many people who think they are smarter than
> the actual Geniuses of the world, when they are actually just showing
> their stupidity.

On 3/10/23 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 10/03/2023 23:37, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/10/23 9:01 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2023 13:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/23 7:43 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2023 12:05, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/23 6:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/03/2023 00:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/23 12:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/03/2023 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it
>>>>>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite
>>>>>>>>>>> execution it is
>>>>>>>>>>> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if
>>>>>>>>>> the resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does
>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of
>>>>>>>>>> your intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is
>>>>>>>>>> not true, because to think of an H doing something different
>>>>>>>>>> than what H actually does is just a falsehood.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but
>>>>>>>>>> you are guilty of the ignrance, since  you have volition,
>>>>>>>>>> which H doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "intertwining" is a necessary, valid and correct property
>>>>>>>>> of simulating halt deciders and simulating halt deciders are
>>>>>>>>> the ONLY kind of halt decider that can solve the halting
>>>>>>>>> problem and only Mr Flibble has created a valid simulating halt
>>>>>>>>> decider with its ternary halting result.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But are proven to NOT be the "Halt Deciders" of Computability
>>>>>>>> theory, so just because they are something that can be made,
>>>>>>>> they aren't the things that they need to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just saying that solving the WRONG problem is ok, but
>>>>>>>> that doesn't solve the problem needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go ahead and try to define the FOP (Flibble's Other Problem) in
>>>>>>>> enough detail to be tested, and see it anyone is interested in
>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It just doesn't answer the actual Halting Problem of
>>>>>>>> Compuational Theory, as in that there is no such thing as a
>>>>>>>> machine whose halting behavior is "Pathological". All such
>>>>>>>> machine will either Halt or they Don't. All you are trying to do
>>>>>>>> is define your decider to be something other than a "machine" so
>>>>>>>> it can do something a machine can't, but that puts it outside
>>>>>>>> the scope of the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you are mistaken.  The Flibble Simulating Halt Decider is
>>>>>>> the ONLY valid halt decider as it gives a ternary result thus
>>>>>>> recognizing the contradiction that is at the heart of the halting
>>>>>>> problem AS DEFINED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Halting isn't a ternary property. A GIVEN machine will either
>>>>>> halt or it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a given DEFINED H, which will have a defined answer for
>>>>>> H(P,P), the behavior of P(P) will either be Halting or
>>>>>> non-Halting. H will just be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus "Pathological" or "Not A Program" is NEVER an answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P is ALWAYS a program if H is, and if H isn't a program, it isn't
>>>>>> a solution to the problem, as the problem is to define a PROGRAM
>>>>>> to decide.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.  The contradiction at the heart of the halting problem
>>>>> *is* defining whether pathological input halts and such input
>>>>> neither halts nor doesn't halt so the *only* sensible result is
>>>>> that the input is invalid (the third result that Mr Flibble has
>>>>> uniquely identified). This contradiction (also known as "The
>>>>> Impossible Program" [Strachey 1965]) is a category error which
>>>>> would manifest as infinite recursion in a SHD that has a binary
>>>>> rather than ternary result.  Olcott is wrong to map a ternary
>>>>> result to a binary result as information is lost (that information
>>>>> being that the input is invalid).
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> There is no contradiction at the hear of the Halting Problem.
>>>>
>>>> The issue is in your understanding of it.
>>>>
>>>> A Program is a definite sequence of instructions which are applied
>>>> to an input.
>>>>
>>>> A Correct Decider will always give the correct answer define for the
>>>> every input.
>>>>
>>>> For a Halt Decider, that is if the program described will halt or not.
>>>>
>>>> The "Pathological" Program is built from the Halt Decider Program by
>>>> strictly valid constructions steps, and thus IS a program if the
>>>> claimed Halt Decider was one.
>>>>
>>>> All the arguements that both you and Olcott make are based on an
>>>> assumption that you get to try to tweek the decider program based on
>>>> the input, but that is a false assumption. The requirement is that
>>>> knowing the requirement, create a single program that will be able
>>>> to handle EVERY input.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the "Pathology" you detect, is something that prevents you
>>>> from creating the halt decider in the first place, which does mean
>>>> that such a decider can not be created.
>>>>
>>>> Any decider you try to create, is proved incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the SHD that doesn't abort gets stuck in an infinite recursion,
>>>> which makes it not a correct decider. Since that is a different
>>>> decider than the version that does abort, and thus the input is a
>>>> different input, that doesn't say anything about the validity of the
>>>> new decider doing its abort.
>>>>
>>>> When the new decider aborts the simulation and returns non-halting,
>>>> the program will halt, so that answer was just wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If you decider detects this sort of program and says "Pathological"
>>>> the program will still either Halt or not (depending on what we
>>>> decide the "Pathological" program will do when given the NaP
>>>> answer), and thus the correct answer will be Either Halting or
>>>> Non-Halting, which would also be the required correct answer if we
>>>> gave the input to a different halt decider (where pathological can't
>>>> be the correct answer, because it doesn't use THAT halt decider).
>>>>
>>>> Since ALL implementaitons of a "Foo" deciders need to give the same
>>>> answer, that of the "Foo" mapping, all Halt Deciders need to also
>>>> give the same answer, so "NaP" can literally only be a correct
>>>> answer if the input is actually NOT a program, so not a program for
>>>> ANY Halt Decider, which means that the original Halt Decider was
>>>> just determined to fail to meet the requirements of being a Program.
>>>
>>> Not at all.  [Strachey 1965] (The Impossible Program) is a category
>>> error and this error is at heart of the halting problem definition.
>>> Mr Flibble is the only person to have ever solved the halting problem.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> Nope, just your lies about stuff you dont understand.
>>
>> The category of the inputs to H are PROGRAMS and D is a PROGRAM, so
>> not a category error.
>>
>> And, you are still LYING about the definition of the Halting Problem,
>> confusing the discusion of the proof with the definition of it.
>>
>> Mr Flibble is just one of many people who think they are smarter than
>> the actual Geniuses of the world, when they are actually just showing
>> their stupidity.
>
> Lies? Stupidity? Ad hominems, dear. Logical fallacies, dear.
>
> /Flibble