XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 11.12.2025 klo 18.05:   
   > On 12/11/2025 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 11.12.2025 klo 4.00:   
   >>> *It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*   
   >>>   
   >>> When the halting problem requires a halt decider   
   >>> to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this   
   >>> is always a category error.   
   >>   
   >> No, that is not a category error. If the question to be answered   
   >> is something other than "does this computation halt" then there   
   >> is not point to call the decider a "halting decider".   
   >>   
   >>> The corrected halting problem requires a Turing   
   >>> machine decider to report in the behavior that   
   >>> its finite string input specifies.   
   >>   
   >> The usual defintion does the same. But usually the requirement is   
   >> that the solution to the problem includes encoding rules that   
   >> specify what the input shall be in order to specify the behaviour   
   >> asked about.   
   >   
   > No this has always been the error of conflating the   
   > behavior of the machine with the behavior specified   
   > by the input finite string. In every case besides   
   > pathological self-reference this makes no difference.   
      
   As I said the usual formulation of the halting problem asks about   
   the behaviour of the machine. It is left to the solver of the   
   problem to crate encoding rules to ensure that the behavour   
   specified by the input to the halting decider is the same as the   
   behaviour asked about.   
      
   If you don't like it that way you must post a pointer to the   
   formulation you think is better for your purposes.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)