On 5/4/22 12:40 PM, 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
>

It seems that you are making the eror of confusing the Halting Problem,
with the Halting Problem Theorem, with the proof of the Theorem.

THe Halting problem, is simply the challange to try to create a
"Program" (i.e a Turing Macnine) that can answer the question (by giving
it an appropriate repesentation) if a given Computation (or Program
given an specific input) will Halt in finite time or run forever. That
is ALL there is to the problem, besides the details of the ground rules
of what the programs can be (which is where making everything Turing
Machines makes things simpler, as the ground rules become simpler to
state). This is what the First Sentence Describes.

The Halting Problem Theorem, is that there does not exist a program that
fully meets the requirements of the problem for all possible inputs.
This is what the second Sentence talks about. This is in the article
about the Halting Problem, because it is ABOUT the Halting Problem, even
if it isn't the problem itself.

Then the second paragraph is a summary of the proof of the Halting
Problme Theorem. Again, it isn't the Halting Problem itself, (Just as a
discussion of the History of the Halting Problem isn't part of the
defintion of the problem).