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 19:32 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u75dib$3s52m$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (11 earlier) <vjplM.4922$pRi8.98@fx40.iad> <u758ma$3rir9$1@dont-email.me> <36qlM.93862$8fUf.42396@fx16.iad> <u75btf$3s02d$1@dont-email.me> <MBqlM.93865$8fUf.39382@fx16.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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.
> 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.
--
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