Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D |
| Date | 2023-06-23 19:03 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u75btf$3s02d$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <z6olM.4920$pRi8.3344@fx40.iad> <u753ib$3r2aa$1@dont-email.me> <vjplM.4922$pRi8.98@fx40.iad> <u758ma$3rir9$1@dont-email.me> <36qlM.93862$8fUf.42396@fx16.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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.
The new part that I am adding (that you partially agreed to?)
Is that any question that contradicts every answer is an incorrect
question.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
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