On 5/4/2022 11:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:54:42 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/22 3:06 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 20:40:13 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/22 7:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 19:16:03 -0400
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/22 6:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 18:46:00 -0400
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 6:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 18:32:16 -0400
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however
>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely recursive definitions that arise out of a
>>>>>>>>>>> category error (as is the case with the halting problem)
>>>>>>>>>>> are invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem (as currently defined) is invalid due to
>>>>>>>>>>> the invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that is
>>>>>>>>>>> actually impossible due to the category error present in its
>>>>>>>>>>> definition and *not* because of any function call-like
>>>>>>>>>>> recursion; confusion between these two types of recursion
>>>>>>>>>>> are why Olcott is having difficulty communicating his ideas
>>>>>>>>>>> with the rest of you shower.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The categories involved in the category error are the
>>>>>>>>>>> decider and that which is being decided. Currently extant
>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to conflate the decider with that which is being
>>>>>>>>>>> decided are infinitely recursive and thus invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that the "impossible program" isn't part of the
>>>>>>>>>> definition of the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is according to [Wikipedia, 2022].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you comprehend worse that PO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, and Encyclopedic entery, like Wikipedia, is NOT just a
>>>>>>>> definition but a full article explaining the subject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe if you look for a FORMAL source, that states what is the
>>>>>>>> ACTUAL definition, you would learn something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Wikipedia is wrong then correct it and have your corrections
>>>>>>> reviewed; until then please shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't that the article is "Wrong", it is a fairly good
>>>>>> Encyclpedic article. It just is that the first two paragraphs
>>>>>> aren't all a definition, and it doesn't say they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first two paragraphs define the halting problem as that is
>>>>> what the currently extant halting problem "proofs" are predicated
>>>>> on (and why they are invalid).
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, lets actually look at what is says, and parse it:
>>>>
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
>>>> to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
>>>> algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>
>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>> what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this case. A
>>>> key part of the proof is a mathematical definition of a computer
>>>> and program, which is known as a Turing machine; the halting
>>>> problem is undecidable over Turing machines. It is one of the
>>>> first cases of decision problems proven to be unsolvable. This
>>>> proof is significant to practical computing efforts, defining a
>>>> class of applications which no programming invention can possibly
>>>> perform perfectly.
>>>>
>>>> Jack Copeland attributes the introduction of the term halting
>>>> problem to the work of Martin Davis in the 1950s.[1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The FIRST SENTENCE is the definition of the Problem.
>>>>
>>>> The Second Sentence is the Theorem about it that says that no
>>>> solution exists.
>>>>
>>>> That ends the first paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> The Second Paragraph, is a continuation of the idea of the Second
>>>> Sentence, giving a summary of the proof that no solution exist.
>>>>
>>>> It is a category error to confuse the Statement of the Problem with
>>>> the Proof of the Theorem that not answer to the Problem exists.
>>>>
>>>> A Proof is NOT a Problem.
>>>
>>> Wrong; the wording in the third paragraph suggests the prior
>>> paragraphs refer to the halting problem itself, i.e. its definition.
>>>
>>> Stop playing word games. The halting problem as defined in
>>> [Wikipedia, 2022] is erroneous as it contains a category error in
>>> the form of an erroneous infinite recursion. The fact that
>>> currently extant halting problem proofs are predicated on this
>>> erroneous infinite recursion tells us that the second paragraph
>>> *is* part of the halting problem definition and thus are invalid.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> So the second sentence of the first paragraph is part of the
>> definition, so BY DEFINITON, no answer exists to the Halting Problem?
>>
>> You can't say that paragraph 2 is part of the definiton and exclude
>> the end of paragraph 1.
>>
>> The only reasonable parsing is:
>>
>> Sentence 1: the Defintion of the Problem
>> Sentence 2: The Theorem about the Problem
>> Paragraph 2: A sketch of the proof of the Theorem
>> Paragraph 3: History of how it got its common name.
>>
>> You confuse the "Halting Problem" with the Theorem about the Halting
>> Problem that states that no machine can exist to compute the answer
>> to the problem (and its proof).
>
> Sentence 2 merely states that Turing provided a proof: a proof is not a
> theory, a proof proves a theory.
>
> I see you wish to continue to play word games; I can play word games
> too, and win.
>
> If I accept your assertion as true (which is reasonable) then the facts
> on the ground haven't actually changed: I merely have to make minor
> modifications to my original assertion. See my "reprise #2" post which I
> will post shortly.
>
> /Flibble
>

I made this same mistake for many years.
Now I refer to the conventional HP proof counter-examples.

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