On 10/21/23 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>> science professor:
>>>>
>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>> limits what is computable.
>>>
>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>
>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>>
>
> That fact that the program specification for a halt decider
> is unsatisfiable proves that it is the same as a question
> that has been defined to not possibly have any correct answer.
>
>

Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the words.

Halting Function is fully defined, so is a valid specification.

The fact that the function turns out to be non-computable, just means
you can't make an actual Halt Decider, not that the specification is
invalid.

Your definitions are the ones that are invalid, as you can't tell IF a
given specification is valid until you either prove the function is
actually computable or not.

That makes your logic system basicaly worthless.

My guess is you again are not going to respond to this message, just
proving that you don't actually have any real response, but are just
repeating your same incorrect reasoning, showing your stupidity.

So, yes, you are admitting that you have no response to the errors being
pointed.

On 10/21/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>> science professor:
>>>>
>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>
>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>> limits what is computable.
>>>
>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>
>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>>
>
> That fact that the program specification for a halt decider
> is unsatisfiable proves that it is the same as a question
> that has been defined to not possibly have any correct answer.

When the halting function is defined to report on the
behavior of the direct execution of its inputs it gets
stymied by self-contradictory inputs and this is what
makes it unsatisfiable.

When it is defined to report on the actual behavior
of its actual input is does not get stymied.

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

On 10/21/23 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>
>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>
>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>
>>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>>>
>>
>> That fact that the program specification for a halt decider
>> is unsatisfiable proves that it is the same as a question
>> that has been defined to not possibly have any correct answer.
>
> When the halting function is defined to report on the
> behavior of the direct execution of its inputs it gets
> stymied by self-contradictory inputs and this is what
> makes it unsatisfiable.
>
> When it is defined to report on the actual behavior
> of its actual input is does not get stymied.
>

But the actual behavior of the actual input IS the behavior of the
direct exectution of the program represented by the input.

And that has a defined answer, in this case HALTING.

To answer about the behavior of an INCORRECT simulation (because it does
not match that of an actual UTM simulating the input) is like saying
that 1 + 2 = 2 because that is the best you could do.

Note, "The Halting Function", the mathematical concept of the mapping of
the inputs to the output, is absolutely defined based on the behavior of
the program described by the input. This function absolutely has a value
for every possible input, so is not "contradictory" (self or otherwise)
but always well defined.

Note, the "pathological input" doesn't call "The Halting Function" as
that isn't code, but it uses a copy of the claimed Halting Decider that
claims to compute that function, which has to be to even get considered.

And the proof shows that any such piece of code gives an incorrect answer.

AGAIN, your failure to respond to the actual errors pointed out is just
indicating that you understand that your pitiful arguments are not
actually correct, and you are just waging a disinformation campaign.

It also shows how little you understand about the topic you are talking
about. You don't even seem to understand that programs are
deterministic, and not "willful", so anthropormorphic terms like
"stymied" are not accurate. The decider is shown to be incorrect, it has
no frustration.

The PROGRAMMER might get syymied, as he commits themselves to trying to
do something proven impossible, but that doesn't make the problem
"invalid" as the quesiton about the program is asking if it IS possible
to make such a program.

Your attempt at insisting that it must be possible to write the program
or the problem is invalid just shows your stupidity.

Questions about the existance of something are not invalid just because
that thing doesn't exist.

Questions about creating something, if possible, are not invalid just
because you can't do it.

For instance, in Game Theory, it is always a correct question to ask if
there is a strategy by which Player 1 can always win. Such a strategy
might not exist. For instance, in Tic-Tac-Toe, because of the option of
ties, turns out to NOT have a strategy for the first player to always
win. But the question is still valid.

You are just proving your utter ignorance of how logic works.

On 10/21/2023 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
>>>>> science professor:
>>>>>
>>>>> The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
>>>>> that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
>>>>> inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
>>>>> direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
>>>>> simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
>>>>> the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
>>>> always say what every other program D will do when D is
>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
>>>> definition of the halting problem does not limit what
>>>> computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
>>>> of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
>>>> limits what is computable.
>>>>
>>>> This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
>>>> specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
>>>> to every other logical impossibility.
>>>
>>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>>>
>>
>> That fact that the program specification for a halt decider
>> is unsatisfiable proves that it is the same as a question
>> that has been defined to not possibly have any correct answer.
>
> When the halting function is defined to report on the
> behavior of the direct execution of its inputs it gets
> stymied by self-contradictory inputs and this is what
> makes it unsatisfiable.
>
> When it is defined to report on the actual behavior
> of its actual input is does not get stymied.
>

Reporting on the direct execution of D(D) is an unsatisfiable
specification therefore incorrect.

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

Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> writes:

> On 10/21/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>
> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the words.

I see this topic is still alive and well! I could not help but be
surprised, though, at this reaction of yours as it seems to me PO's
remark should be celebrated. OK, it's written in the language of a
teenager who's just come across the topic, but what could "[t]he program
specification for a halt decider" mean other than "a TM (or equivalent)
that decides TM halting"? He's not referring to the specification of
the decision problem itself, but of the program to decide it and that
specification, as we all know, can't be met.

His admitting that is big step forward. After all, it was not so long
ago that he was writing things like

"I really do have a halting decider."

and

"All [decision problems] that reduce to the halting problem are simply
decidable."

The fact that he calls it (the specification of such a program) invalid
is surely neither here nor there? He can call it anything he likes,
especially is he will never formally define any of the terms used.

Would it not be a good time leave this topic once and for all, now that
he has agreed that "the program specification for a halt decider" can't
be satisfied (and provably so)? Would it not be a weight off your back
to know that it's now done and dusted?

--
Ben.

On 10/22/2023 6:59 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/21/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>>
>> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the words.
>
> I see this topic is still alive and well! I could not help but be
> surprised, though, at this reaction of yours as it seems to me PO's
> remark should be celebrated. OK, it's written in the language of a
> teenager who's just come across the topic, but what could "[t]he program
> specification for a halt decider" mean other than "a TM (or equivalent)
> that decides TM halting"? He's not referring to the specification of
> the decision problem itself, but of the program to decide it and that
> specification, as we all know, can't be met.
>
> His admitting that is big step forward. After all, it was not so long
> ago that he was writing things like
>
> "I really do have a halting decider."
>
> and
>
> "All [decision problems] that reduce to the halting problem are simply
> decidable."
>
> The fact that he calls it (the specification of such a program) invalid
> is surely neither here nor there? He can call it anything he likes,
> especially is he will never formally define any of the terms used.
>
> Would it not be a good time leave this topic once and for all, now that
> he has agreed that "the program specification for a halt decider" can't
> be satisfied (and provably so)? Would it not be a weight off your back
> to know that it's now done and dusted?
>

This is the essence of the alternative proof

*An unsatisfiable program specification is merely*
*the inability to do the logically impossible thus*
*places no actual limit on anyone or anything*

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

On 10/22/2023 6:59 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/21/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>>
>> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the words.
>
> I see this topic is still alive and well! I could not help but be
> surprised, though, at this reaction of yours as it seems to me PO's
> remark should be celebrated. OK, it's written in the language of a
> teenager who's just come across the topic, but what could "[t]he program
> specification for a halt decider" mean other than "a TM (or equivalent)
> that decides TM halting"? He's not referring to the specification of
> the decision problem itself, but of the program to decide it and that
> specification, as we all know, can't be met.
>
> His admitting that is big step forward. After all, it was not so long
> ago that he was writing things like
>
> "I really do have a halting decider."
>
> and
>
> "All [decision problems] that reduce to the halting problem are simply
> decidable."
>
> The fact that he calls it (the specification of such a program) invalid
> is surely neither here nor there? He can call it anything he likes,
> especially is he will never formally define any of the terms used.
>
> Would it not be a good time leave this topic once and for all, now that
> he has agreed that "the program specification for a halt decider" can't
> be satisfied (and provably so)? Would it not be a weight off your back
> to know that it's now done and dusted?
>

This is the essence of an alternative proof related to
the halting problem

*It seems that everyone agrees with this*
(a) When the halting problem is defined with a program
specification that requires an H to report on the behavior
of the direct execution of D(D) that does the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns then this is an
unsatisfiable program specification.

(b) *An unsatisfiable program specification is merely*
*the inability to do the logically impossible thus places*
*no actual limit on anyone or anything*

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

On 10/22/23 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 6:59 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/21/23 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
>>>> unsatisfiable thus invalid.
>>>
>>> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the words.
>>
>> I see this topic is still alive and well!  I could not help but be
>> surprised, though, at this reaction of yours as it seems to me PO's
>> remark should be celebrated.  OK, it's written in the language of a
>> teenager who's just come across the topic, but what could "[t]he program
>> specification for a halt decider" mean other than "a TM (or equivalent)
>> that decides TM halting"?  He's not referring to the specification of
>> the decision problem itself, but of the program to decide it and that
>> specification, as we all know, can't be met.
>>
>> His admitting that is big step forward.  After all, it was not so long
>> ago that he was writing things like
>>
>>    "I really do have a halting decider."
>>
>> and
>>
>>    "All [decision problems] that reduce to the halting problem are simply
>>    decidable."
>>
>> The fact that he calls it (the specification of such a program) invalid
>> is surely neither here nor there?  He can call it anything he likes,
>> especially is he will never formally define any of the terms used.
>>
>> Would it not be a good time leave this topic once and for all, now that
>> he has agreed that "the program specification for a halt decider" can't
>> be satisfied (and provably so)?  Would it not be a weight off your back
>> to know that it's now done and dusted?
>>
>
> This is the essence of the alternative proof
>
> *An unsatisfiable program specification is merely*
> *the inability to do the logically impossible thus*
> *places no actual limit on anyone or anything*
>

So, that means we can definitely write a program to determine the truth
or falsity of the twin primes conjecture? (since there are no limits on
what can be computed from a valid question).

Or, are you saying that because we found one program to no be writable,
it doesn't affect what other programs are writable, since they never were.

In other words, a worthless statement.

Yes. the proof that the halting problem is not computable does not
change which other problems are computable or not, but does help see
which category some problems are in, and becomes a clear proof that some
problems are definitely not computable.

There are many other problem that might be found to be not computable,
and we know some of them.

Just as there are statements that might not be provable, and we know
that there exist statements that are not provable (but are still true).

So, none of this gets you to the point of showing you big claim, and in
fact, by admitting that Halting is not computable, we can prove a lot of
the limits to possible knowledge.