Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| Subject | Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy |
| References | (8 earlier) <u751ej$3qttf$1@dont-email.me> <z6olM.4920$pRi8.3344@fx40.iad> <u753ib$3r2aa$1@dont-email.me> <vjplM.4922$pRi8.98@fx40.iad> <u758ma$3rir9$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <36qlM.93862$8fUf.42396@fx16.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-23 19:42 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/23/23 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2023 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/23 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2023 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/23 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2023 3:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/23 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 7:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 1:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2023 11:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/23 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2023 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/23 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the halting problem is construed as requiring a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct yes/no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to a contradictory question it cannot be solved. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer H returns is a contradictory input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you agree with the Halting Theorem that says that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct Halting Decider can't be made?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then way are you trying to refute it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just refuted it. From the frame-of-reference of H input D
>>>>>>>>>>> that does
>>>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns the
>>>>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Does D halt on its input" is a contradictory question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you confirmed it and refuted a Strawman.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just said that you can not create an H that gives the
>>>>>>>>>> correct answer, which is EXACTLY what the theorem says, that
>>>>>>>>>> you can not make a decider that answers the exact question:
>>>>>>>>>> "Does the machine represented by the input halt".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not the whole question. Ignoring the context really
>>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>>> make this context go away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that IS the whole question. Please show a relaible reference
>>>>>>>> that makes the question anything like what you are saying it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The halting problem proof counter-example cases*
>>>>>>> There are a set of finite string pairs: {TMD1, TMD2} such that TMD1
>>>>>>> is a decider and TMD2 is its input. TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>> Boolean value that TMD1 returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the set of {TMD1 TMD2} finite string pairs both true and false
>>>>>>> return values are the wrong answer for their corresponding input
>>>>>>> TMD2
>>>>>>> because TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD1
>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is, and only is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>>>>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
>>>>>>>> continue to run forever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turing Machines don't HAVE "Context", they have an input, and
>>>>>>>> give a specific output for every specific input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand this, and are incorrectly assuming
>>>>>>>> things that are not true, because you have made yourself
>>>>>>>> IGNORANT of the actual subjust.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole question is what Boolean value can H return that
>>>>>>>>> corresponds
>>>>>>>>> to the behavior of D(D) when D does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>> value that
>>>>>>>>> H returns?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you are changing the problem, thus you seem to beleive the
>>>>>>>> Strawman is a valid logic form, which makes your logic system
>>>>>>>> UNSOUND.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can either fail to comprehend this or pretend to fail to
>>>>>>>>>>> comprehend this yet the actual facts remain unchanged.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't seem to understand what you are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You yourself just said "It can not be solved".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a question is construed as contradictory it cannot have a
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> answer only because the question itself contradictory, thus
>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But only your altered question is contradictory, the original
>>>>>>>> question has a definite answer for all inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The halting problem proof counter-example cases*
>>>>>>> For the set of {TMD1 TMD2} finite string pairs both true and false
>>>>>>> return values are the wrong answer for their corresponding input
>>>>>>> TMD2
>>>>>>> because TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD1
>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't understand what is being talked about and are
>>>>>>>> replacing computations with some imaginary concept that just
>>>>>>>> doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you think you can change the question and come
>>>>>>>>>> up with a solution for that OTHER question (which isn't the
>>>>>>>>>> actual Halting Problem that you refer to), doesn't mean you
>>>>>>>>>> have refuted that you can't correctly answer the question you
>>>>>>>>>> agreed can't be correctly answered.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the halting problem question is understood to be incorrect
>>>>>>>>> then it places no limit on computation and an equivalent
>>>>>>>>> question is required.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, the problem is the problem. If you think there is
>>>>>>>> something wrong with the question, then you can try to argue why
>>>>>>>> that question is wrong, but you don't get to change it. You can
>>>>>>>> try to create an ALTERNATE field with a different question, but
>>>>>>>> that doesn't say anything about the behavior of the original.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The halting problem proof counter-example cases*
>>>>>>> For the set of {TMD1 TMD2} finite string pairs both true and false
>>>>>>> return values are the wrong answer for their corresponding input
>>>>>>> TMD2
>>>>>>> because TMD2 does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD1
>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turing Machines are NOT "Finite Strings".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can be represented by finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, all you are saying is that UTM TMD1 TMD2 TMD2, which should
>>>>>> predict the behavior of UTM TMD2 TMD2 if TMD1 was correct, doesn't
>>>>>> do that, thus
>>>>>
>>>>> I am saying that the question:
>>>>> "Does input D halt on input D" posed to H
>>>>> is exactly isomorphic to the question:
>>>>> "Will Jack's answer to this question be no?" posed to Jack.
>>>>
>>>> You can say it, but its a lie.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither H nor Jack can answer their questions only because
>>>>> from their frame-of-reference their questions are contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> But the difference is that when we ask Jack, the answer hasn't been
>>>> determined until he actually gives an answer.
>>>>
>>>> When we ask H, the answer was determined the moment H was coded.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not true. We know in advance that both of Jack's possible
>>> answers are the wrong answer and we know in advance that both return
>>> values from H will not correspond to the behavior of the directly
>>> executed D(D).
>>
>> Note, you are changing the Halting question. It is NOT "What can H
>> return to be correct", as What H returns is FIXED by your definition
>> of H.
>>
>
> I am showing that the original halting question is contradictory for the
> set halting problem proof instances: {TM1, TMD2} where TMD2 does the
> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TM1 returns.
Except that you don't actually show that there is any thing wrong any
particular set, just that there does not exist any possible TMD1 that
gets the right answer for its TMD2, which just proves the Halting Problem.
Remember every TMD1 gives just a single answer for a given input, and
every different TMD1 generates a different TMD2 that it needs to get
right to be a counter example, so you can't look across elements for help.
>
> When I say that John has a black cat the fact that Harry has a black dog
> is no rebuttal.
>
> When I say that every input TMD2 is contradictory for its corresponding
> TM1 the fact that it is not contradictory for TM2 is not a rebuttal.
>
The problem is that the question of TMD2 halts has a definite answer, so
isn't the same contrdiction of Jack's question.
Remember every different TMD1 creates a DIFFERENT TMD2, so you never
have a single TMD2 that generates contradictory answers for the Halting
Question, thus, your claim of contradiction is rebutted.
Maybe the issue is you don't actually know what "contradictory" means.
I recently found a fairly simple explanation of the problem, and maybe
even you could understand what is being said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG0obNcgNJM
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 20:27 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 22:25 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 22:16 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 00:32 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 00:06 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 08:11 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 16:46 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:05 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 17:26 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:41 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 18:48 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 18:08 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 19:42 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:03 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 20:16 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:32 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 20:55 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 20:16 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 21:32 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 20:46 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 22:14 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 21:44 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 07:16 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 08:53 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 11:13 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 10:57 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 12:37 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 12:01 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 13:29 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 12:42 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 14:19 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 14:22 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 15:31 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:10 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 16:24 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 16:41 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:59 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 17:08 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:39 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 19:02 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 18:11 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 19:51 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 22:24 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-25 07:33 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:52 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 19:18 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 20:20 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:13 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 22:13 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-27 07:52 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 11:27 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-27 19:02 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 07:53 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 11:46 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 09:49 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:19 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:37 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 17:15 -0500
csiph-web