Jul 19, 2021, 10:19:18 AMJul 19
On 7/18/2021 7:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Proof by contradiction and contradiction are not the same thing; just
> because there is a contradiction is doesn't necessarily follow that a
> proof can be based on it. In the case of the HP the contradiction
> can be avoided in the first place by having a third outcome: P(I) being
> invalid due to pathology that would result in the contradiction.
> HP solved; give me my 1 million USD pls.
Pathological Input to a halt decider is defined as any input that was
defined to do the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt decider
This question can only be correctly answered after the pathology has
been removed. When a halt decider only acts as a pure simulator of its
input until after its halt status decision is made there is no feedback
loop of back channel communication between the halt decider and its
input that can prevent a correct halt status decision.
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre