On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
>> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
>> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
>> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
>
> This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is anything
> wrong with the halting problem.

You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
prove that it is factual.

*Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
*wrong with the halting problem specification*

The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
program at all. It is not even a conceptual object, and
this is due to *inconsistencies in the specification* of
the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017:8)

[3] Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/02/24 21:41, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
>>> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
>>> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
>>> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
>>
>> This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is
>> anything wrong with the halting problem.
>
> You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
> prove that it is factual.

You can claim that it is factual yet the actual facts prove that it is
unfactual.

> *Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
> *wrong with the halting problem specification >
> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
> halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
> a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
> program at all. It is not even a conceptual object, and
> this is due to *inconsistencies in the specification* of
> the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017:8)
>

When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S is
a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
machine. There are no "hidden criteria".

On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 21:41, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 1:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/02/24 19:54, olcott wrote:
>>>> That I and their own (linked) papers agree that the only reason
>>>> the halting problem cannot be solved only because is there is
>>>> something wrong with it is easily verified as factual.
>>>
>>> This is unfactual. None of the papers you linked prove there is
>>> anything wrong with the halting problem.
>>
>> You can claim that it is unfactual yet the actual facts
>> prove that it is factual.
>
> You can claim that it is factual yet the actual facts prove that it is
> unfactual.
>
>> *Try and show how this means that there is nothing*
>> *wrong with the halting problem specification >
>> The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal
>> halt test exists and then provides S as an example of
>> a program that the test cannot handle. But S is not a
>> program at all. It is not even a conceptual object, and
>> this is due to *inconsistencies in the specification* of
>> the halting function. (Stoddart: 2017:8)
>>
>
> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S is
> a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>

The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
whether Stoddart agrees with me, that the halting problem cannot
be solved because there is something wrong with it

*inconsistencies in the specification*
says there is something wrong with it.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/02/24 22:45, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S
>> is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
>> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>>
>
> The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
> whether Stoddart agrees with me,

How very self-centered of you. No matter what you think about Stoddart,
the fact remains: S is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria
for being a Turing machine. There are no "hidden criteria".

> that the halting problem cannot
> be solved because there is something wrong with it

There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except that
they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to solve them.

> *inconsistencies in the specification*
> says there is something wrong with it.

That you do not understand the halting problem does not prove there is
an inconsistency in it.

On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/02/24 22:45, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 3:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> When we are talking about the halting problem for Turing machines, S
>>> is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria for being a Turing
>>> machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>>>
>>
>> The question is not whether you agree with Stoddart. The question
>> whether Stoddart agrees with me,
>
> How very self-centered of you. No matter what you think about Stoddart,
> the fact remains: S is a Turing machine because it meets the criteria
> for being a Turing machine. There are no "hidden criteria".
>
>> that the halting problem cannot
>> be solved because there is something wrong with it
>
> There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except that
> they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to solve them.
>

According to that reasoning I can correctly determine that you
must be stupid when you cannot correctly answer this question:
What time is it (yes or no)?

I had forgotten that I came up with the idea
of ill-formed question all the way back in 2004.

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

>> *inconsistencies in the specification*
>> says there is something wrong with it.
>
> That you do not understand the halting problem does not prove there is
> an inconsistency in it.
>

That professor Stoddart (and Hehner) agree that
it has *inconsistencies in the specification*
proves that I am not a crank.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 13/02/24 02:43, olcott wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with problems that cannot be solved, except
>> that they cannot be solved, which is a problem to people who want to
>> solve them.
>>
>
> According to that reasoning I can correctly determine that you
> must be stupid when you cannot correctly answer this question:
> What time is it (yes or no)?

What?