This is one of the clearest examples of my earliest work that
derives my 2023-10-21 view:

*All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their*
*problem definition requires the logically impossible*

On 6/20/2004 4:17 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>> : PREMISES:
>> : (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>> : was defined to be impossible.
>>
>> That is false.
>> The problem has to do with the possible existence of something.
>> If it turns out that the something doesn't exist, that does NOT
>> mean that "the solution to the problem was defined to be impossible".
>
> Yet this is not the case with the solution to the Halting Problem
> (and square circles). In both these cases it is not merely that no
> solution has been found to satisfy the requirements of the problem.

*These are the words that are perfectly aligned with my current view*
> In BOTH these cases the problem is defined in such a way that
> no solutions are possible. The lack of solution is directly derived
> from the definition of the problem itself.
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott

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

On 10/21/2023 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> This is one of the clearest examples of my earliest work that
> derives my 2023-10-21 view:
>
> *All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their*
> *problem definition requires the logically impossible*
>
>
> On 6/20/2004 4:17 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>   : PREMISES:
>>>   : (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a solution
>>>   : was defined to be impossible.
>>>
>>> That is false.
>>> The problem has to do with the possible existence of something.
>>> If it turns out that the something doesn't exist, that does NOT
>>> mean that "the solution to the problem was defined to be impossible".
>>
>> Yet this is not the case with the solution to the Halting Problem
>> (and square circles). In both these cases it is not merely that no
>> solution has been found to satisfy the requirements of the problem.
>
> *These are the words that are perfectly aligned with my current view*
>> In BOTH these cases the problem is defined in such a way that
>> no solutions are possible. The lack of solution is directly derived
>> from the definition of the problem itself.
>>
>

The halting problem is defined such that it is unsatisfiable
with a single algorithm that correctly determines the halt
status of the behavior of the direct execution of every input.

An unsatisfiable decision problem means that the decision
problem is requiring the logically impossible.

People that can think outside-the-box of the view that
they have memorized by rote can see that requiring the
logically impossible is an invalid requirement.

People that cannot-think-outside-the-box can only
parrot what they have learned by rote this memorized
pattern is the full extent of their understanding.

--
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 12:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> This is one of the clearest examples of my earliest work that
>> derives my 2023-10-21 view:
>>
>> *All undecidable decision problems are simply invalid because their*
>> *problem definition requires the logically impossible*
>>
>>
>> On 6/20/2004 4:17 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>   : PREMISES:
>>>>   : (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a
>>>> solution
>>>>   : was defined to be impossible.
>>>>
>>>> That is false.
>>>> The problem has to do with the possible existence of something.
>>>> If it turns out that the something doesn't exist, that does NOT
>>>> mean that "the solution to the problem was defined to be impossible".
>>>
>>> Yet this is not the case with the solution to the Halting Problem
>>> (and square circles). In both these cases it is not merely that no
>>> solution has been found to satisfy the requirements of the problem.
>>
>> *These are the words that are perfectly aligned with my current view*
>>> In BOTH these cases the problem is defined in such a way that
>>> no solutions are possible. The lack of solution is directly derived
>>> from the definition of the problem itself.
>>>
>>
>
> The halting problem is defined such that it is unsatisfiable
> with a single algorithm that correctly determines the halt
> status of the behavior of the direct execution of every input.
>
> An unsatisfiable decision problem means that the decision
> problem is requiring the logically impossible.
>
> People that can think outside-the-box of the view that
> they have memorized by rote can see that requiring the
> logically impossible is an invalid requirement.
>
> People that cannot-think-outside-the-box can only
> parrot what they have learned by rote this memorized
> pattern is the full extent of their understanding.
>
>
Nope, you don't understand what you are talking about. Apparently
because you are too ignorant.

The Halting Problem, like all decision problems, is asking *IF* a
program can be created to compute a defined decision function.

If a program can be written, the problem is computable/desidable

If a program can not be written, the problem is non-computable/undesidable.

The problem is only "invalid" only if the function itself is ill-defined.

The Halting Problem is asking if we can create a program to compute the
Halting Function, which is the function that is true for all inputs that
represent a Halting compuation, and false that represent a non-halting
computation, and all computations WILL either halt or not. It is a valid
question.

So, until you can provide some magic program that neither halts nor
never halts, your statement that the Halting Problem is invalid is just
incorrect, and a lie.

Note, you are misusing the term "Satisfiable" as it is used in logic.
Satisfiable means that there is a set of values of the input variables
to a formula that make the formula have a "true" value.

The Halting Problem doesn't HAVE a formula to try to satisfy.

It asks about the ability to create a program that can acheive a
specific result.

The answer to the question is NO, that doesn't make the problem invalid.

You are just proving to the world how ignorant you are of the field tha
that you make grand claims about, showing how stupid you actually are.

You failure to even try to address any of the errors pointed out in your
arguements, even to the point of not answering the messages makeing
those points, just shows how broken your argument is.

You seem to have just surrendered to the fact that your arguement is
wrong, but are trying the principle of the "Big Lie", that by repeatig
it often enough, some people might just believe it.

This is the same thing that you claim to be fighting agaisnt, so you are
just proving yourself to be a Hypocrite.

You lose.