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 10:39 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u74eb4$3osqd$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <Jo7lM.69542$8uge.50240@fx14.iad> <u732pk$3k3si$1@dont-email.me> <Cf9lM.19426$VKY6.18464@fx13.iad> <u7398h$3kr32$1@dont-email.me> <4_flM.19603$VKY6.16773@fx13.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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.
When the halting problem question is understood to be incorrect for
a set of finite string pairs then the halting problem proofs
counter-examples (and thus the proof itself) becomes a mere ruse.
> You just don't understand how things work, and thus you make yourself
> inot a LIAR.
>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When H returns 1 for inputs that it determines do halt and returns
>>>>>> 0 for
>>>>>> inputs that either do not halt or do the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>> value that H returns then these pathological inputs are no longer
>>>>>> contradictory and become decidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are admitting that you criteria is DIFFERENT then that of
>>>>> the Halting Problem, so your "Termination Analyzer" is NOT a
>>>>> "Solution to the Halting Problem"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No I am not. I do not believe that a termination analyzer can be
>>>> required to report on different behavior than the behavior that it
>>>> actually sees.
>>>
>>> So, you don't belive the requirements as stated are the requirement.
>>
>> When I require you to provide a correct (yes or no) answer to the
>> question: What time is it? You can't do this because the question is
>> incorrect.
>
> SO? That isn't the question. You are just going off onto Red Herrings.
>
When the halting problem question:
"Does input halt?" is applied to the
*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.
> Your use of Red Herrings just shows that you are getting "desperate" as
> your logic is falling apart, so you need a diversion away from the
> actual truth.
>
It is the case that H does divide its input up three ways into halting
non-halting and incorrect question. H recognizes and reject D as a
pathological input that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that
H returns.
> Since you have started by changing the question, NOTHING You have said
> applies to the actual problem, so everything you try to say about that
> original problem is just a LIE.
>
Everything that I said is about the fact that the actual problem is a
mere ruse, like betting someone ten dollars if the can correctly tell
you whether or not this sentence is true or false:
"This sentence is not true"
(1) They must sat true or false
(2) They must be correct
(3) Or they lose ten dollars.
>>
>> If I ask you to tell me whether or not the Liar Paradox
>> "This sentence is not true" is true or false you cannot answer because
>> it is a contradictory question.
>
> SO? Again, a Red Herring. The Liar's Paradox is a question that doesn't
> have a truth value.
>
No element of the {TMD1, TMD2} finite string pairs has a correct
Boolean return value for input TMD2 to decider TMD1.
> The Halt Question, "Does the machine represented by the input to the
> decider Halt" always does, thus your claiming they are equivalent is
> just a LIE.
>
It never does for every element of the {TMD1, TMD2} finite string pairs.
> Yes, your alternate question, which is just a Strawman, is very similar
> to the Liar's Paradox, which is one reason you can't change the question
> to that,
>
It is merely the ordinary halting problem question:
Does this input halt?" applied to the
*The halting problem proof counter-example cases*
resulting in both true and false being incorrect return values
from every TMD1 for its corresponding TMD2 input that does the
opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD1 returns.
>>>
>>> I guess that means you believe it is ok to use strawmen instead of
>>> the actual problem, and lie that you are doing the actual requirements.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that myself and Professor Sipser agree that another criteria
>> is equivalent. When H would never stop running unless H aborted its
>> simulation of D proves that D does not halt from the point of view of H.
>>
>> If H does not abort D then H never halts this proves that not aborting
>> is D is incorrect.
>
> That isn't what he said,
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
words are correct (he has not agreed to anything else):
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
It is correct that D correctly simulated by H never reaches its own last
instruction from the point of view of H.
If it was absolutely true that TMD2 halts then there would be no need
for TMD1 to ever abort its simulation of TMD2. Therefore that TMD2 halts
is not true from an absolute point of view, it is only true relative to
the direct execution of TMD2(TMD2).
From the frame-of-reference of TMD1, TMD2 must be aborted because it
meets the spec and not aborting it crashes the system.
> so you are just LYING agin. He didn't agree to
> a different requirement, you provided an example of something you
> claimed H could show and asked if it was good enough. He said it was,
> but you H doesn't actually prove that condition, because you don't
> understand what a "Correct Simulation" means in the field.
>
> YOU used the wrong "Context" to the words, and thus were LYING.
>
> Face it, you need to change the question because you know the original
> question proves what it claims, but you just don't understand that once
> you do that you are no longer dealing with the "Halting Problem of
> Computability Theory". but just with your stinky POOP.
If we leave the concept of undecidability as it is then the question:
"What time is it (yes or no)?" becomes a correct yet undecidable
decision problem.
That people previously simply did not pay close enough attention to the
nuances of natural language semantics by making sure to ignore the full
context of the halting problem question merely proves that people
weren't paying complete attention. It does not prove that the question
is correct.
When the halting problem question: "Does the input halt?"
is applied to:
*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.
--
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 comp.theory | 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
csiph-web