Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #161836 > unrolled thread

General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 10:38 -0700
    Re: General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 18:52 -0700
    Re: General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 03:23 +0100
      Re: General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:34 -0700
        Re: General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:05 +0100
          Re: General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 07:26 -0700
      Re: General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2021-07-11 02:40 +0000
        Re: General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 20:06 -0700

#161836 — General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ)

Since the conventional HP only mentions a specific halting problem, which is
often believed to be an invalid proof.
See https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/RO9Z9eCabeE/m/Ka8-xS2rdEEJ

I hereby claims the General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ):
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

// Example1:
// [Ret] true: f prints 'Y'
//      false: f does not print 'Y'
bool U(Func f); 

void P() {
 if(U(P)) {
   printf("b");
 } else {
   printf("Y");
 }
}
//---

// Example2:
// [Ret] true: f is a "pathological self-reference" function
//      false: otherwise
bool U(Func f);

void P() {
 if(U(P)) {
   return;
 } else {
   P();   // if "pathological self-reference" is so defined, whatever.
 }
};

--
Copyright 2021 WIJ

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#161860

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 01:38:34 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> Since the conventional HP only mentions a specific halting problem, which is 
> often believed to be an invalid proof. 
> See https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/RO9Z9eCabeE/m/Ka8-xS2rdEEJ 
> 
> I hereby claims the General Undecidable Axiom(2021 WIJ): 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
> | No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P. | 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
> 
> // Example1: 
> // [Ret] true: f prints 'Y' 
> // false: f does not print 'Y' 
> bool U(Func f); 
> 
> void P() { 
> if(U(P)) { 
> printf("b"); 
> } else { 
> printf("Y"); 
> } 
> } 
> //--- 
> 
> // Example2: 
> // [Ret] true: f is a "pathological self-reference" function 
> // false: otherwise 
> bool U(Func f); 
> 
> void P() { 
> if(U(P)) { 
> return; 
> } else { 
> P(); // if "pathological self-reference" is so defined, whatever. 
> } 
> }; 
> 
> -- 
> Copyright 2021 WIJ

The construct of P (proof of General Undecidable Axiom) is 100% correct, 
intuitive and above all, REPRODUCIBLE, VERIFIABLE.

// [Ret] true: f has the (dynamic)property Q
//      false: otherwise
bool U(Func f);

void P() {
 if(U(P)) {
   // do whatever Q defines false
 } else {
   // do whatever Q defines
 }
};

Note: I would like to acknowledge Olcott tirelessly refuted various conventional
 HP proofs over these years. So I need not to do the same work again, though not necessary.

--
Copyright 2021 WIJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161861

wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> writes:

> Since the conventional HP only mentions a specific halting problem...

Why did you post this here?  You should consider topicality if you want
to be a good netizen.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161862

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 10:23:28 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > Since the conventional HP only mentions a specific halting problem... 
> 
> Why did you post this here? You should consider topicality if you want 
> to be a good netizen. 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

The axiom GUA is the computation theory EVERY C programmer should know.
Because of olcott's case, I think 'some' C programmer may be not be clear 
about the essential general idea and make programming mistakes.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
--
Copyright 2021 WIJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161870

wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 10:23:28 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> > Since the conventional HP only mentions a specific halting problem... 
>> 
>> Why did you post this here? You should consider topicality if you want 
>> to be a good netizen. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ben.

It's better to trim sigs.  Mine's short, but even so...

> The axiom GUA is the computation theory EVERY C programmer should
> know.

The list of things every C programmer should know that are not topical
on comp.lang.c is almost endless.  Anyway, I won't go on about it.  Like
PO you don't want to stay on-topic so all I can do is fix my side of the
bargain.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161876

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 17:05:13 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 10:23:28 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: 
> >> 
> >> > Since the conventional HP only mentions a specific halting problem... 
> >> 
> >> Why did you post this here? You should consider topicality if you want 
> >> to be a good netizen. 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Ben.
> It's better to trim sigs. Mine's short, but even so...

Which one? Do you mean "Copyright 2021 WIJ"? (this one must be visible to
prevent from hijack)

> > The axiom GUA is the computation theory EVERY C programmer should 
> > know.
> The list of things every C programmer should know that are not topical 
> on comp.lang.c is almost endless. Anyway, I won't go on about it. Like 
> PO you don't want to stay on-topic so all I can do is fix my side of the 
> bargain. 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

Are one line of statement and two C-examples not enough?

From Olcott's Incident, I am surprised that many 'C/C++ programmers' do not
really understand the meaning of the Halting Problem, quite a phenomenon.
I would rather believe this is only special in comp.lang.c.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161863

On 11/07/2021 03:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Why did you post this here?  You should consider topicality if you want
> to be a good netizen.
>

He is the same guy who has been flooding this newsgroup. This time he 
used a VPN and the posting was done through a service in Taiwan. The link given in the 
post is the clue. Who in their right mind would know that 2004 link!

I think we should just stop responding and from time to time they should 
be reported to their ISP or News service provider. For too long we have 
been very tolerant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161864

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 10:41:21 UTC+8, Real Troll wrote:
> On 11/07/2021 03:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> > Why did you post this here? You should consider topicality if you want 
> > to be a good netizen. 
> >
> He is the same guy who has been flooding this newsgroup. This time he 
> used a VPN and the posting was done through a service in Taiwan. The link given in the 
> post is the clue. Who in their right mind would know that 2004 link! 
> 
> I think we should just stop responding and from time to time they should 
> be reported to their ISP or News service provider. For too long we have 
> been very tolerant.

Recently the 'nation' concept in my place has been manipulated vaguely.
I would like the full name: Republic Of China (Taiwan)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web