On 2024-01-09 14:01:53 +0000, olcott said:

On 1/8/2024 11:07 PM, immibis wrote:

Premises:

1. The halting problem is Olcott-self-contradictory.
2. Olcott-self-contradictory problems can't be solved.

Conclusion:

3. The halting problem can't be solved.

When D is intentionally defined to do the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns then input D <is>
absolutely self-contradictory to termination analyzer H
when H is required to report on the behavior of the
directly executed D.

*MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim* *paragraph is correct*
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

That paragraph is essentially correct but not useful unless one
can determine
whether H is a halt decider,
whether H correctly simulates its input D,
whether H ever determines that its simulation of D would never
stop running,
and whether that determination is correct.

Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)