Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #29777
| Subject | Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.logic, comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy |
| References | (23 earlier) <u6popm$23c2e$1@dont-email.me> <lE6kM.5961$zcM5.4010@fx11.iad> <u6r83f$2bliv$1@dont-email.me> <PWfkM.7458$Zq81.2570@fx15.iad> <u6sfg6$2fgi8$3@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <bTjkM.3649$WpOe.1549@fx18.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/20/23 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/19/23 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider" might be something I will call a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semi-halt-decider here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, it would always have the possibility to "give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up" (for certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know/can't tell" (and this way be able to avoid INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWERS concerning the actual behavior of P(d)).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key difference with my work that is a true innovation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this field
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictory inputs and rejects them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> input has definite behavior, so there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradiction possilble, only error.
>>>>>>>>>>> If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack
>>>>>>>>>>> reply with?
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly why can’t you answer this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and
>>>>>>>>>> is just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its
>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>> 03
>>>>>>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>> 05 {
>>>>>>>>> 06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>> 07 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>> 08 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> 09 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> 10 }
>>>>>>>>> 11
>>>>>>>>> 12 void main()
>>>>>>>>> 13 {
>>>>>>>>> 14 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>> 15 }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to
>>>>>>>>> encode it
>>>>>>>>> in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any
>>>>>>>>> Boolean value that you want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
>>>>>>> That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge
>>>>>>> that no
>>>>>>> such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
>>>>>>> corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the
>>>>>> Halting Problem, can't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is
>>>>> correct.
>>>>> H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees.
>>>>
>>>> Where does THAT come from. It may only be ABLE to do so, but the
>>>> REQUIREMENT is the behavior of the actual machine.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have trouble with the English Languge.
>>>>
>>>> Please show me any reputable reference that says you get to
>>>> disregard the ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS because you can't see what you
>>>> need to do so
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not
>>>>> see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior
>>>>> that
>>>>> it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see
>>>>> making its report incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because that is what the requirements say. The requirements are
>>>> what the requirements say, because that is the requirements needed
>>>> to solve the mathematical problems that a Halt Decider is hoped to
>>>> be able to help with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the requirements are self-contradictory then they are incorrect.
>>
>> Whats self-contradictory of the ACTUAL QUESTION that is asked?
>>
>
> D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
> of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
>
> D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
> of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
>
> D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
> of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
>
> D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
> of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
>
> D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
> of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
So?
How does that make the question self-contradictory?
For any D defined (which first requires H to be fully defined) the
behavior of D(D) is precisely defined, so no self-contradiction to the
quesiton of "Does the machine described by this input Halt?"
Where is the ACTUAL contradiction to that answer. Remember, at the point
the question can be ask, H needs to be a DEFINED program, not just some
nebulous concept of how to do it.
>
>
> When we use the criteria:
> Can D correctly simulated by H ever terminate normally?
Which isn't the criteria, so you are just admitting that you have been
lying for years about what you are doing.
Only an Idiot or a Pathological Liar thinks they can change the question
and still be working on the original problem.
>
> After N steps of correct simulation the execution trace of D proves that
> D cannot possibly reach its final instruction and terminate normally in
> any finite number of steps.
No, it proves that H can not simulate D to its final instruction.
D reaches that final instruction just fine.
You can't seem to tell the difference between REALITY (the actual
execution of the machine) and FANTASY (the partial simulation of the
input done by H).
This just shows your lack of understanding of how things actually work.
>
> This criteria matches non-halting input and it also matches the cases
> where the input D has been intentionally defined to do the opposite of
> whatever Boolean value that H returns.
But doesn't match ALL input, so it is a LIE to say it is equivalent.
>
> When H returns 1 it means that its input halts and when H return 0
> it means that either its input does not halt or D was intentionally
> defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
SO, H needs to return BOTH 0 and 1 for this criteria, which is
self-contradictory, so the criteria is invalid. PERIOD.
>
> To the best of my knowledge no one has ever made this much progress on
> the halting problem's pathological input. To the best of my knowledge
> everyone else was completely stumped by the halting problem's
> pathological input.
>
>
Maybe to the best of your knowledge, but you work it total garbage and
the actually useful ideas that you are using are quite old. The fact you
don't know about them just shows your ignorance.
Back to comp.ai.philosophy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 00:54 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 08:09 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 13:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 13:23 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 16:27 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-17 22:09 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:46 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-06-17 16:03 -0600
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:18 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:44 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:35 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 23:03 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:13 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:29 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 22:57 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 22:10 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 08:02 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 09:32 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:41 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:54 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:09 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 13:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:05 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:20 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:30 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:47 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 15:19 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:26 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 16:10 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 18:43 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 19:59 -0400
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 22:31 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 07:38 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 09:30 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 20:45 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:57 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 00:33 -0700
ChatGPT discussion (was: Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-06-20 11:16 +0000
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 07:19 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:09 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:06 -0500
Re: Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: dishonest subject lines Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 17:02 +0100
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 12:25 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:57 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:52 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:39 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 17:53 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:07 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 18:52 -0400
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:59 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:00 -0500
ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-06-21 19:10 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-06-21 19:23 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 14:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 19:01 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 19:40 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 22:47 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 21:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 07:26 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 09:18 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 21:06 -0400
csiph-web