On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>
>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt
>>>> is wrong.
>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>
>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>> hard to implement).
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>>
>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>
> No, it isn't.
> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> Do you refute this definition?

Yes I do.

Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.

Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Do you refute this definition?
>
> Yes I do.
>

So which number is that? 1-7?

On 1/11/2024 11:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>
>> Yes I do.
>>
>
> So which number is that? 1-7?
>

It is 7. I already said this.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Do you refute this definition?
>
> Yes I do.
>
> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>
> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.

So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS
then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone else is
talking about.

On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>
>> Yes I do.
>>
>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>
>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>
> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS
> then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone else is
> talking about.
>

*Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
They are making a mistake isomorphic to the mistake
that Tarski made by incorrectly construing the Liar
Paradox as a truth bearer.

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

On 1/12/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>
>>> Yes I do.
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>
>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>
>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone
>> else is talking about.
>>
>
> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*

OK so you haven't solved the halting problem at all. You think you've
solved a different problem. I don't think you've even solved the
different problem, because your solution still has problems, but since
it's a different problem, it may need a different proof. Right now, the
problem isn't specified properly because it's not clear which machines
are the self-contradictory ones that you don't think we should check the
halting status of.

As you know, a Turing machine is specified by a list of alphabet
symbols, which one is the default, a list of states, which one is the
initial state, which ones are accepting states, and a transition table.

Is there an algorithm, based on a list of alphabet symbols, which one is
the default, a list of states, which one is the initial state, which
ones are accepting states, and a transition table. tells me whether the
machine has undefined halting behaviour?

> They are making a mistake isomorphic to the mistake
> that Tarski made by incorrectly construing the Liar
> Paradox as a truth bearer.

So you believe that some logical statements are neither true nor false.

When I write something like "∀x. x + 1 = 5" you believe it's possible
that it might be neither true nor false. The one I just wrote is
obviously false, but you believe there are some that aren't true and
also aren't false?

On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
>>>>> P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
>>>>> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Do you refute this definition?
>
> Yes I do.
>
> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.

Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.

Mikko

On 1/12/24 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>
>>> Yes I do.
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>
>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>
>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that everyone
>> else is talking about.
>>
>
> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
> They are making a mistake isomorphic to the mistake
> that Tarski made by incorrectly construing the Liar
> Paradox as a truth bearer.
>
>

So, what makes that given D not a PROGRAM?

What rules of PROGRAMS has it violatd.

Remember, you have admitted that your D isn't actually a program, but
just a template, so you have admitted your whole arghument is based on a
dishonest strawman argument.

On 1/11/24 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>
>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>
>> Do you refute this definition?
>
> Yes I do.
>
> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>
> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.

And what is contradictory to ITSELF.

D contradicts H, not D, so not self contradictory.

On 1/12/2024 1:03 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
>>>>>>> decider".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do.
>>>>
>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>>
>>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>>
>>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that
>>> everyone else is talking about.
>>>
>>
>> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
>
> OK so you haven't solved the halting problem at all. You think you've
> solved a different problem.
When Tarski "proved" that a consistent and correct True(L,x) predicate
cannot exist on the basis of his false assumption that the Liar Paradox
is a truth bearer his mistake must be corrected and the Liar Paradox
rejected as not a truth bearer.

A decider computes the mapping from its input finite string to an accept
or reject state on the basis of a property of this input string.

When the halting problem is defined to report on the behavior of the
non-input direct execution of D(D) when deciders are defined as required
to only report on the behavior of their inputs then the computer science
of this is inconsistent and must be corrected.

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

On 1/12/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts
>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>
>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>
>> Yes I do.
>>
>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>
> Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
> does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
> semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.
>
> Mikko
>

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

It is a verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
reach its own line 06 and halt. Changing the subject to some other
computation is the fallacy of equivocation error or the strawman error.

A decider must compute the mapping from an input finite string to an
accept or reject state on the basis of a property of this finite string
input. Referring to the properties of non-inputs is not allowed.

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

On 1/12/24 16:47, olcott wrote:
> On 1/12/2024 1:03 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no
>>>>>>>>> in-between.
>>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't
>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
>>>>>>>> decider".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>>>
>>>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>>>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that
>>>> everyone else is talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
>>
>> OK so you haven't solved the halting problem at all. You think you've
>> solved a different problem.
> When Tarski "proved" that a consistent and correct True(L,x) predicate
> cannot exist on the basis of his false assumption that the Liar Paradox
> is a truth bearer his mistake must be corrected and the Liar Paradox
> rejected as not a truth bearer.

I haven't read Tarski's proof. Didn't he convert it to an arithmtic
formula? Every arithmetic formula is a truth bearer.

On 1/12/2024 10:36 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 16:47, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/12/2024 1:03 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/12/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no
>>>>>>>>>> in-between.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
>>>>>>>>> decider".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other
>>>>>>>>> behaviour is
>>>>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS
>>>>>>> ANY SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>>>>>>> EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>>>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>>>>
>>>>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>>>>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that
>>>>> everyone else is talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
>>>
>>> OK so you haven't solved the halting problem at all. You think you've
>>> solved a different problem.
>> When Tarski "proved" that a consistent and correct True(L,x) predicate
>> cannot exist on the basis of his false assumption that the Liar Paradox
>> is a truth bearer his mistake must be corrected and the Liar Paradox
>> rejected as not a truth bearer.
>
> I haven't read Tarski's proof. Didn't he convert it to an arithmtic
> formula? Every arithmetic formula is a truth bearer.
>

He incorrectly proved that no True(L,x) predicate can possibly exist
because such a predicate cannot correctly determine whether the Liar
Paradox is true or false. He didn't seem to notice that it is neither.

He did seem to notice that the Liar Paradox applied to itself is true.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

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

On 1/12/24 1:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/12/2024 10:36 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 16:47, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2024 1:03 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no
>>>>>>>>>>> in-between.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that
>>>>>>>>>>> determines whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
>>>>>>>>>> decider".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error
>>>>>>>>>> makes the
>>>>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour is
>>>>>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS
>>>>>>>> ANY SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>>>>>>>> EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>>>>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>>>>>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that
>>>>>> everyone else is talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
>>>>
>>>> OK so you haven't solved the halting problem at all. You think
>>>> you've solved a different problem.
>>> When Tarski "proved" that a consistent and correct True(L,x) predicate
>>> cannot exist on the basis of his false assumption that the Liar Paradox
>>> is a truth bearer his mistake must be corrected and the Liar Paradox
>>> rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>
>> I haven't read Tarski's proof. Didn't he convert it to an arithmtic
>> formula? Every arithmetic formula is a truth bearer.
>>
>
> He incorrectly proved that no True(L,x) predicate can possibly exist
> because such a predicate cannot correctly determine whether the Liar
> Paradox is true or false. He didn't seem to notice that it is neither.
>
> He did seem to notice that the Liar Paradox applied to itself is true.
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.
>

WHERE did he do this. You have said this many times, but can't point to
the actual statement he did it in.

You Rre just proven to be a liar making untenable claims.

On 1/12/24 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/12/2024 1:03 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 06:39, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 11:33 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no
>>>>>>>>> in-between.
>>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't
>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
>>>>>>>> decider".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski never noticed that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
>>>>> thus his Undefinability Theorem is anchored in an error.
>>>>
>>>> So which inputs are valid to a halting decider? If it isn't ALL
>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAMS (AND INPUTS) WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
>>>> EXCEPTIONS then you are not talking about the same thing that
>>>> everyone else is talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Of course I am not, they are all incorrect*
>>
>> OK so you haven't solved the halting problem at all. You think you've
>> solved a different problem.
> When Tarski "proved" that a consistent and correct True(L,x) predicate
> cannot exist on the basis of his false assumption that the Liar Paradox
> is a truth bearer his mistake must be corrected and the Liar Paradox
> rejected as not a truth bearer.

Where does he assume the Liar Paradox is a Truth Bearer?

Exact line please, or you are just showing yourself to be a LIAR.

>
> A decider computes the mapping from its input finite string to an accept
> or reject state on the basis of a property of this input string.
>
> When the halting problem is defined to report on the behavior of the
> non-input direct execution of D(D) when deciders are defined as required
> to only report on the behavior of their inputs then the computer science
> of this is inconsistent and must be corrected.

WHy is the behavior of the program described by the input NOT a property
of that input?

That is part of the definition of a Semantic Property.

On 2024-01-12 16:29:43 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/12/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether
>>>>>>> P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is wrong.
>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY
>>>>>>> NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>
>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>
>>> Yes I do.
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>
>> Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
>> does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
>> semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> 01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> It is a verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
> reach its own line 06 and halt. Changing the subject to some other
> computation is the fallacy of equivocation error or the strawman error.
>
> A decider must compute the mapping from an input finite string to an
> accept or reject state on the basis of a property of this finite string
> input. Referring to the properties of non-inputs is not allowed.

That requirement only applies when the input is valid. If the input
is not valid a decider may do something else instead of accepting
or rejecting.

Mikko

On 1/12/24 19:48, olcott wrote:
> He did seem to notice that the Liar Paradox applied to itself is true

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

On 1/13/2024 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-12 16:29:43 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/12/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
>>>>>>> decider".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do.
>>>>
>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>
>>> Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
>>> does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
>>> semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 02 {
>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 void main()
>> 10 {
>> 11   H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> It is a verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
>> reach its own line 06 and halt. Changing the subject to some other
>> computation is the fallacy of equivocation error or the strawman error.
>>
>> A decider must compute the mapping from an input finite string to an
>> accept or reject state on the basis of a property of this finite string
>> input. Referring to the properties of non-inputs is not allowed.
>
> That requirement only applies when the input is valid. If the input
> is not valid a decider may do something else instead of accepting
> or rejecting.
>
> Mikko
>

H accepts its input when D correctly simulated by H reaches its
own line 06 and terminates normally, otherwise H rejects this input.
H is not allowed to report on the behavior of non-inputs.

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

On 1/13/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-12 16:29:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/12/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no
>>>>>>>>> in-between.
>>>>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
>>>>>>>>> 3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't
>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines
>>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't
>>>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> 6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
>>>>>>>>> halts is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
>>>>>>>> decider".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
>>>>>>>>> ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
>>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
>>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
>>>>>>>> hard to implement).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
>>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>> It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
>>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you refute this definition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.
>>>>
>>>> Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
>>>> does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
>>>> semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
>>> reach its own line 06 and halt. Changing the subject to some other
>>> computation is the fallacy of equivocation error or the strawman error.
>>>
>>> A decider must compute the mapping from an input finite string to an
>>> accept or reject state on the basis of a property of this finite string
>>> input. Referring to the properties of non-inputs is not allowed.
>>
>> That requirement only applies when the input is valid. If the input
>> is not valid a decider may do something else instead of accepting
>> or rejecting.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> H accepts its input when D correctly simulated by H reaches its
> own line 06 and terminates normally, otherwise H rejects this input.
> H is not allowed to report on the behavior of non-inputs.
>

Then H is just not a Halt Decider, and actually doesn't exist, as the
only machines that do an actual correct simulation are UTMs, and they
never abort, and just H isn't allowed to "reject" the input.

You are just proving your ignorance and stupidity.