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 16:05 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u751ej$3qttf$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <Cf9lM.19426$VKY6.18464@fx13.iad> <u7398h$3kr32$1@dont-email.me> <4_flM.19603$VKY6.16773@fx13.iad> <u74eb4$3osqd$1@dont-email.me> <8xnlM.70408$8uge.61578@fx14.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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.
Neither H nor Jack can answer their questions only because
from their frame-of-reference their questions are contradictory.
It is very important that this issue is recognized because until it is
recognized we can never have any AI that can reliably distinguish
between truth and falsehoods because the Tarski undefinability theorem
that is isomorphic to the Halting Problem proofs proves that True(L,x)
can never be defined.
If everyone believes that True(L,x) cannot be defined (even though
it can be defined) then no one will work on defining True(L,x) and
AI will be forever in the dark about True(L,x).
--
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