X-Received: by 2002:a37:58c4:0:b0:760:90ce:4575 with SMTP id m187-20020a3758c4000000b0076090ce4575mr1687582qkb.9.1687209441487; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:349:0:b0:bcc:285c:66dd with SMTP id q9-20020a5b0349000000b00bcc285c66ddmr4007276ybp.11.1687209441207; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87wmzzjjv6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.206.206.253; posting-account=-75WZwoAAABL0f0-07Kn6tvNHWg7W9AE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.206.206.253
References: <u6jhqq$1570m$1@dont-email.me> <580d711a-afd0-4eae-b2bd-84b0126905d3n@googlegroups.com> <u6ptvb$23qkq$1@dont-email.me> <6a7076e8-79b9-49cb-8da9-dc538329cf89n@googlegroups.com> <87wmzzjjv6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ba5862ed-4910-4b73-81e7-245b0584e46fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question
From: Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 21:17:21 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: csiph.com sci.logic:254660

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 10:08:20=E2=80=AFPM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase writes:=20
> >
> > D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.=20
> >=20
> > Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is=20
> > "yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.
> >
> Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that=
=20
> the wrong answer is the right one:=20
>=20
> Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even=20
> though P(P) halts?"=20
>=20
> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.=20
>=20
> (Back then, D was called P.)=20

I see. Thank you, Ben! That's kind of you.

> This was not a slip of the tongue. He has been quite clear that he is=20
> talking about something other than what the world calls halting. It's=20
> about what /would/ happen if the program were slight different, not=20
> about what actually happens:=20
>=20
> PO: "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts=20
> unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the=20
> conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a=20
> few more."=20
>=20
> He has been (eventually) perfectly clear -- PO's "Other Halting" is not=
=20
> halting, which is why false can be the correct answer for some halting=20
> computations.

I see.

> The only mystery is why anyone still wants to talk about POOH.=20

*sigh* Don't ask...

I guess the following "explains a lot":

https://xkcd.com/386/