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 | (12 earlier) <u758ma$3rir9$1@dont-email.me> <36qlM.93862$8fUf.42396@fx16.iad> <u75btf$3s02d$1@dont-email.me> <MBqlM.93865$8fUf.39382@fx16.iad> <u75dib$3s52m$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <N9rlM.39673$7915.10787@fx10.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-23 20:55 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/23/23 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2023 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/23 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2023 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can know in advance that any answer that Jack provides and any return
>>> value that TM1 returns on input TMD2 is the wrong answer / return value.
>>>
>>> Furthermore we can know it is the wrong answer / return value
>>> specifically because every answer / return value is contradicted.
>>
>> No, because for the halting Problem, TMD1 is a FIXED MACHINE in any
>> asking of the question, and their IS a correct answer to the question,
>> it just isn't the one that TMD1 gives.
>>
>> That is the difference.
>>
>> Thus, TMD1 is just WRONG, the question isn't a "Contradiction". TMD2
>> might have contradicted TMD1, but no contradiciton appears in the
>> question itself.
>>
>>>
>>> The new part that I am adding (that you partially agreed to?)
>>> Is that any question that contradicts every answer is an incorrect
>>> question.
>>>
>>
>> Except you don't define "Contradiction" in a proper manner.
>>
>
> That I don't define it in a conventional manner does not mean that I am
> defining it incorrectly.
No, but it means you can't use any attribute from the previous definition.
If you are going to make up a term, don't reuse an existing one.
This is just one of the ways you lie about things, you redefine terms
and try to pick and chose what you can import from the original terms
without trying to prove that you can. This is just more of your Hypocracy.
>
>> Remember, the Halting Question is about a SPECIFIC machine each time
>> it is asked,
> No it is not. It is always about every element of the entire set of
> {TM1, TMD2} (halting problem proof instance) pairs.
>
Every element INDIVIDUALLY,
A set is not a program, and you trying to make it one just shows your
stupidity.
You are just admitting you don't have a bit of ground to stand on for
you claims.
You have proved yourself to be a Hypocritical Ignorant Pathological
Lying Insane Idiot.
Your work is in the trash heap.
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