Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36063 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-19 13:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 154 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 12:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:12 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:06 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:23 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:32 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:38 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:59 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:14 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:35 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:12 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:39 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:52 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:58 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 23:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 17:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 15:12 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:47 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 18:30 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 02:56 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:18 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 03:34 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:45 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:34 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:55 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 21:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:32 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:39 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:23 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-11 10:43 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:19 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 10:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 18:20 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 12:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 19:18 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:09 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:44 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 14:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 13:36 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 08:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:04 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 10:27 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:18 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:01 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:41 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-20 17:16 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 14:41 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:55 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 09:40 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 16:49 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 08:44 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:22 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 14:13 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 06:19 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-12 17:33 +0200
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:51 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:27 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:15 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:16 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:56 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 10:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 22:03 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 10:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:07 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:45 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 09:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 21:48 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-15 03:43 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-15 07:54 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:09 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:24 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 13:27 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 21:08 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-12 21:24 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:53 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 22:59 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:32 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 23:31 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 03:51 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:38 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 15:24 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 16:22 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 18:48 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] (Fixing Tarski's nonsense ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:29 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:14 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 20:40 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:58 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 21:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 22:39 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 23:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:41 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 07:23 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-12 23:40 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 18:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 22:57 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:21 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-13 11:49 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:45 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 21:10 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:03 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 16:52 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:37 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:04 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [unknown to be undecidable] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 09:21 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:42 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 16:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 04:39 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ "I agree with Olcott" ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 11:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-11 22:14 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:10 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:09 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:24 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:59 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:07 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 20:17 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:40 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 14:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:40 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:52 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 13:25 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Olcott's theory |
| Message-ID | <20210710180053.00005ad3@reddwarf.jmc> |
I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct, falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to examine) which rely on that mistake. The mistake Olcott seems to be making is inferring that just because those proofs are invalid then that somehow means that the halting problem itself is not undecidable. /Flibble
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jtmdnR3-ZvVuTnT9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36063 |
On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which > is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct, > falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to > examine) which rely on that mistake. The mistake Olcott seems to be > making is inferring that just because those proofs are invalid then that > somehow means that the halting problem itself is not undecidable. > > /Flibble > [An impossible program] C. Strachey The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243 No I never made that mistake, My goal since 2004 has always been to simply prove that the proofs are incorrect. Here is my original 2004 claim that everyone has disagreed with in more than 15,000 messages since 2004: [Halting Problem Final Conclusion] comp.theory Peter Olcott Sep 5, 2004, 11:21:57 AM The Liar Paradox can be shown to be nothing more than a incorrectly formed statement because of its pathological self-reference. The Halting Problem can only exist because of this same sort of pathological self-reference. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/RO9Z9eCabeE/m/Ka8-xS2rdEEJ -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210710181236.000034e3@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36064 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > The Halting Problem can only exist because > of this same sort of pathological self-reference. ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a collection of proofs have a mistake. Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and introduces the notion of computation by machine." /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <F4WdnUGyybYxfHT9nZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36065 |
On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > >> The Halting Problem can only exist because >> of this same sort of pathological self-reference. > > ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a > collection of proofs have a mistake. > > Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is > being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: > > "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and > introduces the notion of computation by machine." > > /Flibble > *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem* At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs. [An impossible program] C. Strachey The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published correction. If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't know what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable. Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture Busy Beaver only seems intractable not undecidable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 19:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210710192301.000036c1@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36070 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 > > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > > > >> The Halting Problem can only exist because > >> of this same sort of pathological self-reference. > > > > ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a > > collection of proofs have a mistake. > > > > Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is > > being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: > > > > "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and > > introduces the notion of computation by machine." > > > > /Flibble > > > > *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem* > At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the > undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey form, > are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs. You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit not you unless you are claiming that you have independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey without being aware of Strachey until recently? /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 13:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m6OdnclGD7hUenT9nZ2dnUU7-fnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36071 |
On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>
>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a
>>> collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>
>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is
>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>
>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and
>>> introduces the notion of computation by machine."
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey form,
>> are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs.
>
> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit not
> you unless you are claiming that you have independently reached the same
> conclusion as Strachey without being aware of Strachey until recently?
>
> /Flibble
>
All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the halting
problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that the Strachey form
proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
rec routine P
§L:if T[P] go to L
Return §
If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
that the function T cannot exist.
When Strachey says:
"this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider {function
T} does not exist.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 19:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210710193833.000013e4@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36075 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
> >>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
> >>>
> >>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a
> >>> collection of proofs have a mistake.
> >>>
> >>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is
> >>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
> >>>
> >>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions
> >>> and introduces the notion of computation by machine."
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
> >> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
> >> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
> >> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs.
> >
> > You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit not
> > you unless you are claiming that you have independently reached the
> > same conclusion as Strachey without being aware of Strachey until
> > recently?
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the halting
> problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that the Strachey
> form proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>
> rec routine P
> §L:if T[P] go to L
> Return §
>
> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> that the function T cannot exist.
>
> When Strachey says:
> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>
> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
> {function T} does not exist.
No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what is
being decided which is quite different. If you are correct about all
the textbooks being wrong then the mistake there is the authors of the
textbooks not correctly understanding the implications of the
contradiction Strachey is highlighting which, as I said earlier, has no
bearing on the decidability of the halting problem itself.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <keidnZ2t6KdPd3T9nZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36077 |
On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a
>>>>> collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is
>>>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions
>>>>> and introduces the notion of computation by machine."
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
>>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
>>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs.
>>>
>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit not
>>> you unless you are claiming that you have independently reached the
>>> same conclusion as Strachey without being aware of Strachey until
>>> recently?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the halting
>> problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that the Strachey
>> form proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>
>> rec routine P
>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>> Return §
>>
>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>
>> When Strachey says:
>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>
>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
>> {function T} does not exist.
>
> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what is
> being decided which is quite different.
So when Strachey says:
"this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
Strachey does not mean
{this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
> If you are correct about all
> the textbooks being wrong then the mistake there is the authors of the
> textbooks not correctly understanding the implications of the
> contradiction Strachey is highlighting which, as I said earlier, has no
> bearing on the decidability of the halting problem itself.
>
> /Flibble
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210710195929.00006d41@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36079 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
> >>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even
> >>>>> if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is
> >>>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions
> >>>>> and introduces the notion of computation by machine."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
> >>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
> >>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
> >>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs.
> >>>
> >>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit
> >>> not you unless you are claiming that you have independently
> >>> reached the same conclusion as Strachey without being aware of
> >>> Strachey until recently?
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
> >> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that the
> >> Strachey form proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
> >>
> >> rec routine P
> >> §L:if T[P] go to L
> >> Return §
> >>
> >> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> >> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> >> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> >> that the function T cannot exist.
> >>
> >> When Strachey says:
> >> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>
> >> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
> >> {function T} does not exist.
> >
> > No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what is
> > being decided which is quite different.
>
> So when Strachey says:
> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>
> Strachey does not mean
> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e. the
"pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 14:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <rI6dnbYQ75HJbXT9nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36080 |
On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even
>>>>>>> if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is
>>>>>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions
>>>>>>> and introduces the notion of computation by machine."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
>>>>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
>>>>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit
>>>>> not you unless you are claiming that you have independently
>>>>> reached the same conclusion as Strachey without being aware of
>>>>> Strachey until recently?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
>>>> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that the
>>>> Strachey form proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> rec routine P
>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>>>> Return §
>>>>
>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>>>
>>>> When Strachey says:
>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>
>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
>>>> {function T} does not exist.
>>>
>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what is
>>> being decided which is quite different.
>>
>> So when Strachey says:
>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>
>> Strachey does not mean
>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
>
> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e. the
> "pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
>
> /Flibble
>
Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that this
proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 20:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <20210710201443.00007e9a@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36081 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
> >>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even
> >>>>>>> if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which
> >>>>>>> is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
> >>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
> >>>>>>> machine."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
> >>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
> >>>>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
> >>>>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook
> >>>>>> proofs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit
> >>>>> not you unless you are claiming that you have independently
> >>>>> reached the same conclusion as Strachey without being aware of
> >>>>> Strachey until recently?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
> >>>> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that the
> >>>> Strachey form proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
> >>>>
> >>>> rec routine P
> >>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
> >>>> Return §
> >>>>
> >>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> >>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> >>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> >>>> that the function T cannot exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> When Strachey says:
> >>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>>>
> >>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
> >>>> {function T} does not exist.
> >>>
> >>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what
> >>> is being decided which is quite different.
> >>
> >> So when Strachey says:
> >> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>
> >> Strachey does not mean
> >> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
> >
> > He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e. the
> > "pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that
> this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that that was
his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if called from within
P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 14:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <9c6dndc0s-gnaHT9nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36082 |
On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even
>>>>>>>>> if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which
>>>>>>>>> is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
>>>>>>>>> machine."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
>>>>>>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
>>>>>>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook
>>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the credit
>>>>>>> not you unless you are claiming that you have independently
>>>>>>> reached the same conclusion as Strachey without being aware of
>>>>>>> Strachey until recently?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
>>>>>> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that the
>>>>>> Strachey form proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rec routine P
>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>>>>>> Return §
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Strachey says:
>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
>>>>>> {function T} does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what
>>>>> is being decided which is quite different.
>>>>
>>>> So when Strachey says:
>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>
>>>> Strachey does not mean
>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
>>>
>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e. the
>>> "pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that
>> this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>
> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that that was
> his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if called from within
> P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
>
> /Flibble
>
None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on the
Strachey form as their entire basis.
http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 20:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <20210710203558.0000230f@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36084 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
> >>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists
> >>>>>>>>> even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that
> >>>>>>>>> which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
> >>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
> >>>>>>>>> machine."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
> >>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of
> >>>>>>>> the undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the
> >>>>>>>> Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to include all
> >>>>>>>> textbook proofs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the
> >>>>>>> credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
> >>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey without
> >>>>>>> being aware of Strachey until recently?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
> >>>>>> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that
> >>>>>> the Strachey form proves that the halting problem is
> >>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> rec routine P
> >>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
> >>>>>> Return §
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> >>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> >>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> >>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When Strachey says:
> >>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
> >>>>>> {function T} does not exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what
> >>>>> is being decided which is quite different.
> >>>>
> >>>> So when Strachey says:
> >>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>>>
> >>>> Strachey does not mean
> >>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
> >>>
> >>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e.
> >>> the "pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that
> >> this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
> >
> > When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that that
> > was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if called from
> > within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on the
> Strachey form as their entire basis.
>
> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying the
halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as it doesn't
help your case (and is the reason I have been dismissive of your posts
in the past).
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 14:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <scd28p$19hh$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36085 |
On 7/10/2021 12:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: [...] >>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that >>>> this proves that the halting problem is undecidable. >>> >>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that that >>> was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if called from >>> within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program". >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression. >> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on the >> Strachey form as their entire basis. >> >> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf > > Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying the > halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as it doesn't > help your case (and is the reason I have been dismissive of your posts > in the past). Great advise!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 16:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <M4udnbJTO4mwkHf9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36085 |
On 7/10/2021 2:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists
>>>>>>>>>>> even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that
>>>>>>>>>>> which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
>>>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
>>>>>>>>>>> machine."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of
>>>>>>>>>> the undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the
>>>>>>>>>> Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to include all
>>>>>>>>>> textbook proofs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the
>>>>>>>>> credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
>>>>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey without
>>>>>>>>> being aware of Strachey until recently?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
>>>>>>>> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that
>>>>>>>> the Strachey form proves that the halting problem is
>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rec routine P
>>>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>>>>>>>> Return §
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>>>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>>>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>>>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Strachey says:
>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt decider
>>>>>>>> {function T} does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of what
>>>>>>> is being decided which is quite different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when Strachey says:
>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strachey does not mean
>>>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
>>>>>
>>>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e.
>>>>> the "pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that
>>>> this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>
>>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that that
>>> was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if called from
>>> within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
>> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on the
>> Strachey form as their entire basis.
>>
>> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
>
> Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying the
> halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as it doesn't
> help your case (and is the reason I have been dismissive of your posts
> in the past).
>
> /Flibble
>
Like I already explained in much more words with many more key details,
if none of these conventional (Strachey based) undecidability proofs are
correct then that doesn't seem to leave any other proof of halting
undecidability:
Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
Busy Beaver only seems intractable thus not undecidable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
It is probably a good time for me to take a first look at the actual
Turing proof. I merely need to verify that it is isomorphic to the
Strachey form.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 22:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <20210710223908.0000794f@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36093 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:12:12 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2021 2:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists
> >>>>>>>>>>> even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that
> >>>>>>>>>>> which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
> >>>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
> >>>>>>>>>>> machine."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
> >>>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of
> >>>>>>>>>> the undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the
> >>>>>>>>>> Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to include all
> >>>>>>>>>> textbook proofs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the
> >>>>>>>>> credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
> >>>>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey
> >>>>>>>>> without being aware of Strachey until recently?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
> >>>>>>>> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that
> >>>>>>>> the Strachey form proves that the halting problem is
> >>>>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> rec routine P
> >>>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
> >>>>>>>> Return §
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> >>>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> >>>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> >>>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When Strachey says:
> >>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt
> >>>>>>>> decider {function T} does not exist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of
> >>>>>>> what is being decided which is quite different.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So when Strachey says:
> >>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Strachey does not mean
> >>>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e.
> >>>>> the "pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that
> >>>> this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
> >>>
> >>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that
> >>> that was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if
> >>> called from within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
> >> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on
> >> the Strachey form as their entire basis.
> >>
> >> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
> >
> > Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying the
> > halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as it
> > doesn't help your case (and is the reason I have been dismissive of
> > your posts in the past).
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Like I already explained in much more words with many more key
> details, if none of these conventional (Strachey based)
> undecidability proofs are correct then that doesn't seem to leave any
> other proof of halting undecidability:
>
> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>
> Busy Beaver only seems intractable thus not undecidable.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
>
> It is probably a good time for me to take a first look at the actual
> Turing proof. I merely need to verify that it is isomorphic to the
> Strachey form.
You are still missing the point: even if [Turing 1937] has the same
mistake you still cannot prove that the halting problem itself is not
undecidable just because that particular proof is invalid.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 16:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <SeKdnXqmKL2oiHf9nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36094 |
On 7/10/2021 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:12:12 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 2:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to include all
>>>>>>>>>>>> textbook proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the
>>>>>>>>>>> credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
>>>>>>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>> without being aware of Strachey until recently?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that the
>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz agree that
>>>>>>>>>> the Strachey form proves that the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rec routine P
>>>>>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>>>>>>>>>> Return §
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>>>>>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>>>>>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>>>>>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Strachey says:
>>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt
>>>>>>>>>> decider {function T} does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of
>>>>>>>>> what is being decided which is quite different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So when Strachey says:
>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strachey does not mean
>>>>>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P; i.e.
>>>>>>> the "pathological self reference" you keep going on about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes that
>>>>>> this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that
>>>>> that was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if
>>>>> called from within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
>>>> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on
>>>> the Strachey form as their entire basis.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
>>>
>>> Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying the
>>> halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as it
>>> doesn't help your case (and is the reason I have been dismissive of
>>> your posts in the past).
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Like I already explained in much more words with many more key
>> details, if none of these conventional (Strachey based)
>> undecidability proofs are correct then that doesn't seem to leave any
>> other proof of halting undecidability:
>>
>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>
>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable thus not undecidable.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
>>
>> It is probably a good time for me to take a first look at the actual
>> Turing proof. I merely need to verify that it is isomorphic to the
>> Strachey form.
>
> You are still missing the point: even if [Turing 1937] has the same
> mistake you still cannot prove that the halting problem itself is not
> undecidable just because that particular proof is invalid.
>
> /Flibble
>
None-the-less once the halting problem is no longer provably undecidable
computation loses its definite limits.
The key other aspect of this is that the Tarski undefinability theorem
can be understood to fail for the same reason that the halting theorem
fails.
This can have an explosive effect on AI research. Davidson's truth
conditional semantics can finally be anchored in a formal mathematical
notion of truth.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 22:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <20210710225237.00000d83@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36095 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:46:28 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2021 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:12:12 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 2:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the undecidability of the halting problem that rely
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on the Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> include all textbook proofs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the
> >>>>>>>>>>> credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
> >>>>>>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>> without being aware of Strachey until recently?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that
> >>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz
> >>>>>>>>>> agree that the Strachey form proves that the halting
> >>>>>>>>>> problem is undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> rec routine P
> >>>>>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
> >>>>>>>>>> Return §
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> >>>>>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> >>>>>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> >>>>>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When Strachey says:
> >>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
> >>>>>>>>>> exist."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt
> >>>>>>>>>> decider {function T} does not exist.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of
> >>>>>>>>> what is being decided which is quite different.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So when Strachey says:
> >>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Strachey does not mean
> >>>>>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P;
> >>>>>>> i.e. the "pathological self reference" you keep going on
> >>>>>>> about.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes
> >>>>>> that this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that
> >>>>> that was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if
> >>>>> called from within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
> >>>> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on
> >>>> the Strachey form as their entire basis.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying
> >>> the halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as it
> >>> doesn't help your case (and is the reason I have been dismissive
> >>> of your posts in the past).
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Like I already explained in much more words with many more key
> >> details, if none of these conventional (Strachey based)
> >> undecidability proofs are correct then that doesn't seem to leave
> >> any other proof of halting undecidability:
> >>
> >> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> >>
> >> Busy Beaver only seems intractable thus not undecidable.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
> >>
> >> It is probably a good time for me to take a first look at the
> >> actual Turing proof. I merely need to verify that it is isomorphic
> >> to the Strachey form.
> >
> > You are still missing the point: even if [Turing 1937] has the same
> > mistake you still cannot prove that the halting problem itself is
> > not undecidable just because that particular proof is invalid.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> None-the-less once the halting problem is no longer provably
> undecidable computation loses its definite limits.
No, a lack of a proof showing that the halting problem is undecidable
does NOT imply that the halting problem is not undecidable; that still
needs to be proven.
[snip]
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 16:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <-sCdnc1l1K5oinf9nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36096 |
On 7/10/2021 4:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:46:28 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:12:12 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the undecidability of the halting problem that rely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all textbook proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without being aware of Strachey until recently?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree that the Strachey form proves that the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> rec routine P
>>>>>>>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>>>>>>>>>>>> Return §
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>>>>>>>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Strachey says:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider {function T} does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part of
>>>>>>>>>>> what is being decided which is quite different.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So when Strachey says:
>>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Strachey does not mean
>>>>>>>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot exist.}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P;
>>>>>>>>> i.e. the "pathological self reference" you keep going on
>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes
>>>>>>>> that this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that
>>>>>>> that was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if
>>>>>>> called from within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
>>>>>> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely on
>>>>>> the Strachey form as their entire basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying
>>>>> the halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as it
>>>>> doesn't help your case (and is the reason I have been dismissive
>>>>> of your posts in the past).
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like I already explained in much more words with many more key
>>>> details, if none of these conventional (Strachey based)
>>>> undecidability proofs are correct then that doesn't seem to leave
>>>> any other proof of halting undecidability:
>>>>
>>>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>
>>>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable thus not undecidable.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
>>>>
>>>> It is probably a good time for me to take a first look at the
>>>> actual Turing proof. I merely need to verify that it is isomorphic
>>>> to the Strachey form.
>>>
>>> You are still missing the point: even if [Turing 1937] has the same
>>> mistake you still cannot prove that the halting problem itself is
>>> not undecidable just because that particular proof is invalid.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> None-the-less once the halting problem is no longer provably
>> undecidable computation loses its definite limits.
>
> No, a lack of a proof showing that the halting problem is undecidable
> does NOT imply that the halting problem is not undecidable; that still
> needs to be proven.
>
> [snip]
>
> /Flibble
>
It transforms what was previously thought to be known as a definite
limit to all computation into no known limit to computation. This is huge.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 23:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <20210710230015.00000d9c@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36097 |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:58:13 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2021 4:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:46:28 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:12:12 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/10/2021 2:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the undecidability of the halting problem that rely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all textbook proofs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> without being aware of Strachey until recently?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz
> >>>>>>>>>>>> agree that the Strachey form proves that the halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rec routine P
> >>>>>>>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Return §
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When Strachey says:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exist."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>> decider {function T} does not exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part
> >>>>>>>>>>> of what is being decided which is quite different.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So when Strachey says:
> >>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
> >>>>>>>>>> exist."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Strachey does not mean
> >>>>>>>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
> >>>>>>>>>> exist.}
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P;
> >>>>>>>>> i.e. the "pathological self reference" you keep going on
> >>>>>>>>> about.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes
> >>>>>>>> that this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that
> >>>>>>> that was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if
> >>>>>>> called from within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
> >>>>>> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely
> >>>>>> on the Strachey form as their entire basis.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying
> >>>>> the halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as
> >>>>> it doesn't help your case (and is the reason I have been
> >>>>> dismissive of your posts in the past).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Like I already explained in much more words with many more key
> >>>> details, if none of these conventional (Strachey based)
> >>>> undecidability proofs are correct then that doesn't seem to leave
> >>>> any other proof of halting undecidability:
> >>>>
> >>>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not
> >>>> undecidable.
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> >>>>
> >>>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable thus not undecidable.
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
> >>>>
> >>>> It is probably a good time for me to take a first look at the
> >>>> actual Turing proof. I merely need to verify that it is
> >>>> isomorphic to the Strachey form.
> >>>
> >>> You are still missing the point: even if [Turing 1937] has the
> >>> same mistake you still cannot prove that the halting problem
> >>> itself is not undecidable just because that particular proof is
> >>> invalid.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> None-the-less once the halting problem is no longer provably
> >> undecidable computation loses its definite limits.
> >
> > No, a lack of a proof showing that the halting problem is
> > undecidable does NOT imply that the halting problem is not
> > undecidable; that still needs to be proven.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> It transforms what was previously thought to be known as a definite
> limit to all computation into no known limit to computation. This is
> huge.
Mr Flibble is very cross.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOE7qTAK87o
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web