On 12/24/23 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>>
>>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This also equally applies to computability.
>>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>>
>>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>> Anyone can find three idiots.
>>
>
> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
So, what is "Self-Contradictory" about the actual problem?
Do you agree that all actual programs, as defined in Computability
Theory, will either halt of not?
(If not, show one example of an actual program that will either
sometimes halt and sometimes not when given the exact say input, or will
somehow neither halt or not)
>
> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
> different meaning thus is a different question.
How?
Does the input D represent a program that will halt with its specified
input or not?
How can that depend on who you ask to try to predict it actual behavior?
Maybe your problem is that your "Termination analyzer" isn't trying to
determine that answer to the wrong question. It isn't being asked if
"Its" simulation will halt, it is being asked if the program when run
will halt, and any "simulation" attempted of that input MUST match that
behavior to be a valid substitution.
>
> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
> context of who is asked.
And the context is FULLY specified in the question. It is asking about
the behavior of the actual execution of the program described to it.
>
> As a concrete example the question:
> "Are you a little girl?"
> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
And that example needs the pronoun "You", there is no equivalent to a
pronoun in the actual halting question.
"Does the machine and input represented by the input Halt when run"
No pronoun to change the context.
So?
H gives the wrong answer, so isn't correct.
H1 isn't the machine that your particular D was built to refute, so it
giving the right answer is meaningless.
Remember, D includes the copy of the code of the decider that it is to
refute, so, since D doesn't include H1's code, it can't be the needed
input to show H1 wrong.
You are just proving you don't understand any of the basic terms.
Note, your programs also fail to actually meet the requirements as you
have no "seperate" program "H" (or "H1") and input "D" but just one
bundled mess that can not actually be decomposed into the needed
independent machine and input.
This just shows your total lack of understanding of the problem.