On 5/9/22 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2022 12:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 10:51:54 -0500
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/8/2022 7:39 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 08:31:10 -0400
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/22 8:02 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 07:45:52 -0400
>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/22 4:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 11:31:08 +0300
>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-07 15:19:01 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 18:13:08 +0300
>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-07 14:20:17 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:16:31 +0300
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-07 14:06:12 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 16:59:55 +0300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-07 12:42:50 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:52:58 +0300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-06 14:02:53 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The decider could never be compiled and run in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place due to the category error in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An error in the definition of the proof does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent compilation and execution of the program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case the error in the definition of the proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No part of the proof is identified as errorneous, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest is irrelevant. Anyway,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does prevent compilation unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no option here, so the "unless" is void.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the decider is made part of the program that is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The decider is made a part of the program discussed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which case we get a function call-like infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursion instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We get or we don't get, depending on how the halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidate attempts to decide.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as described by Pete Olcott) and we are attempting (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing) to decide if a procedure halts rather than if a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, the decider candidate fails to give the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct answer, and therefore is not a halt decider. Note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this is correctly inferred in the proof. Therefore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either the conclusion of the proof is correct or you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No answer is ever given due to the infinite recursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True about some candidates, false about others. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, a candidate that always says "no" is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely recursive but is wrong in the particular case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed in the proof. But anyway, you have confirmed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion of the proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> False. The proof is not cognisant of the presence of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion.  The decider can never return an answer
>>>>>>>>>>>> of halts/doesn't halt due to the infinite recursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct term is decider candidate. It is not a decider
>>>>>>>>>>> because the infinite recursion prevents it from halting in
>>>>>>>>>>> finite time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot call the proof incorrect merely because it agrees
>>>>>>>>>>> with you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try actually reading what Strachey wrote: a contradiction
>>>>>>>>>> arises based on the result of evaluating T[P] however T[P] is
>>>>>>>>>> never evaluated due to the infinite recursion: a fact ignored
>>>>>>>>>> by the proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can prove that the program does give the correct result
>>>>>>>>> in that case you have proven Strachey wrong. Otherwise you
>>>>>>>>> haven't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strachey is wrong because he neglected to account for the
>>>>>>>> infinite recursion; this should be obvious to anyone who has
>>>>>>>> actually read and understood what Strachey wrote: it seems that
>>>>>>>> you haven't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because if T gets stuck in an infinite recursion, it is
>>>>>>> wrong, because it failed to answer in finite time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If T does answer in finite time, then there never was an infinite
>>>>>>> recursion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you have shown is that there exists a WRONG method to build
>>>>>>> a T that gets stuck, Like a T that needs to run its input to
>>>>>>> completion to answer about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have shown that [Strachey, 1965] contains an infinite recursion
>>>>>> and is thus invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you haven't. All you have shown is that one way to attempt to
>>>>> make the program that Strachev says doesn't exist, fails due to
>>>>> getting caught in infinite recursion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That just helps confirm Strachev, not refute it.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Strachey's proof is based on a contradiction relating to
>>>> evaluating the result of T[P] however T[P] can never be evaluated if
>>>> there is an infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> They all have this same basis.
>>> The infinite recursion itself is evaluated.
>> Have you not read my retraction? I was in error: there is no infinite
>> recursion.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> I spent 15,000 hours on this since 2004, all of my messages are still in
> this group. I have known more about this since you first began, and I
> know more about that after your retraction.
>
> The idea of category error applied to instances of pathological
> self-reference is a new idea.
>

You have WASTED 15,000 hours on this.

You are committing the category error, and are just wrong.