Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36412 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-16 19:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-22 08:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-16 19:00 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-16 19:28 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-16 19:31 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 14:24 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-16 19:46 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 14:56 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-16 20:56 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 15:00 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-16 22:42 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-16 22:24 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 17:32 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-16 22:54 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 23:15 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 09:10 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 09:37 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-17 17:24 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 12:06 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-18 02:45 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-18 12:26 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 09:41 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-20 01:36 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 17:11 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-17 07:40 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-17 16:47 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-17 16:37 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [ Flibble is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:40 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [ Flibble is correct ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-18 11:43 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-18 12:13 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-18 15:15 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-18 07:42 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-18 17:02 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-18 10:12 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-18 13:22 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 12:30 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Pathological self-reference error (Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 08:41 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-18 19:55 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-18 21:00 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-18 14:22 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-18 20:08 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-19 02:06 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-19 21:09 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-20 11:24 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 03:43 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-20 13:53 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-20 14:02 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 06:30 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 10:22 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-19 09:11 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 01:13 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 11:34 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-19 02:24 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-19 13:06 +0200
Re: Halting Problem Solved Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 04:52 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 08:14 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 08:43 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-19 21:12 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 09:16 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-19 21:25 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 00:38 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 09:43 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [ Flibble is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 09:48 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 13:30 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 16:16 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 17:21 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 16:37 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 18:37 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 18:02 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 23:32 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 08:17 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 09:24 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 23:26 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-16 21:57 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-16 22:06 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 16:10 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-16 22:22 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 16:30 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 13:31 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-16 21:46 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 16:07 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-16 23:59 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 10:35 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-18 03:32 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 09:55 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-20 01:35 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 09:22 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 08:40 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 09:29 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 10:33 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 01:28 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 09:48 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 09:41 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 01:12 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 20:27 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 18:37 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 20:49 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 19:01 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 02:49 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 20:57 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 19:19 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 20:57 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 22:25 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 21:50 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 23:40 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 22:26 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-22 00:55 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 08:04 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-22 08:23 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved (title is a misnomer) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 09:52 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (title is a misnomer) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 10:22 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 21:53 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 16:47 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 14:54 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 00:04 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 18:22 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 00:53 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-23 09:04 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 09:41 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 22:13 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-23 16:54 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 15:19 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 04:02 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-22 18:05 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-23 08:36 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 21:04 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved [ Ben admits that he lied ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-19 21:17 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-16 23:59 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [Ben is a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [Ben is a liar ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-18 03:12 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [Ben is a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 10:02 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [Ben is a liar ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-20 01:36 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) Charlie-Boo <shymathguy@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 08:12 -0700
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 19:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) |
| Message-ID | <20210716190042.000041e1@reddwarf.jmc> |
A pathological program that executes a black box decider and returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box decider. So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can return: 1) Program halts 2) Program does not halt 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. Halting problem solved. Next. /Flibble
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 19:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h7guqfk3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36412 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > A pathological program that executes a black box decider and returns the > opposite result can be detected by the black box decider. > > So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can return: > > 1) Program halts > 2) Program does not halt > 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. > > Halting problem solved. This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if any of the students here would like to have a go at that? (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a textbook on this topic.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 19:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210716193144.0000033b@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36416 |
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > > > A pathological program that executes a black box decider and > > returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box > > decider. > > > > So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can > > return: > > > > 1) Program halts > > 2) Program does not halt > > 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. > > > > Halting problem solved. > > This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. > Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set > explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if any > of the students here would like to have a go at that? > > (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a textbook on > this topic.) I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; feel free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u-ednY9rEIBEQWz9nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36419 |
On 7/16/2021 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >>> A pathological program that executes a black box decider and >>> returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box >>> decider. >>> >>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >>> return: >>> >>> 1) Program halts >>> 2) Program does not halt >>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. >>> >>> Halting problem solved. >> >> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. >> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set >> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if any >> of the students here would like to have a go at that? >> >> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a textbook on >> this topic.) > > I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; feel > free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. > > /Flibble > I think that you called him out correctly. He has been reveiwing my work since 2006. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 19:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <scsnmk$25df$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36419 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> > A pathological program that executes a black box decider and >> > returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box >> > decider. >> > So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >> > return: >> > 1) Program halts >> > 2) Program does not halt >> > 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. >> > Halting problem solved. >> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. >> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set >> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if any >> of the students here would like to have a go at that? >> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a textbook on >> this topic.) > I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; feel > free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. That's quite uncalled for. Reading (or browsing) these interminable threads over the last months, it's quite clear that Ben is an expert. You, by contrast, are merely exercising your freedom of expression. That you, in all apparent seriousness, put forward your 1), 2), 3) above indicates you are far from an expert. These things aren't a matter of opinion, they're a matter of settled fact. When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection of the angle or the squaring of the circle. > /Flibble -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 14:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <TP2dnUu-ROXOeWz9nZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36434 |
On 7/16/2021 2:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > >>>> A pathological program that executes a black box decider and >>>> returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box >>>> decider. > >>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >>>> return: > >>>> 1) Program halts >>>> 2) Program does not halt >>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. > >>>> Halting problem solved. > >>> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. >>> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set >>> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if any >>> of the students here would like to have a go at that? > >>> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a textbook on >>> this topic.) > >> I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; feel >> free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. > > That's quite uncalled for. Reading (or browsing) these interminable > threads over the last months, it's quite clear that Ben is an expert. > You, by contrast, are merely exercising your freedom of expression. > > That you, in all apparent seriousness, put forward your 1), 2), 3) above > indicates you are far from an expert. These things aren't a matter of > opinion, they're a matter of settled fact. > > When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except amongst > cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection of the > angle or the squaring of the circle. > >> /Flibble > None-the-less when an input does the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt decider decides those that are not mere sheep following the herd of others realize that this exactly matches the self-contradictory pattern of the Liar Paradox and is thereby erroneous. If a halt decider merely watches the behavior of its simulated input this eliminates the self-contradictory nature of the conventional counter-examples. The halt decider cannot possibly have any effect on its own halting decision because it has no behavior that can possibly have any effect on this decision. In this case the input cannot possibly do the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides. -- 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 | 2021-07-16 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210716205629.00006506@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36434 |
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 > > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > > >> > A pathological program that executes a black box decider and > >> > returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box > >> > decider. > > >> > So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can > >> > return: > > >> > 1) Program halts > >> > 2) Program does not halt > >> > 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. > > >> > Halting problem solved. > > >> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. > >> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set > >> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if > >> any of the students here would like to have a go at that? > > >> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a > >> textbook on this topic.) > > > I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; > > feel free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. > > That's quite uncalled for. Reading (or browsing) these interminable > threads over the last months, it's quite clear that Ben is an expert. > You, by contrast, are merely exercising your freedom of expression. > > That you, in all apparent seriousness, put forward your 1), 2), 3) > above indicates you are far from an expert. These things aren't a > matter of opinion, they're a matter of settled fact. Expert? I have a CompSci BSc (Hons) degree, dear. Also, "far from an expert" is an attack on the person and not the argument, a logical fallacy, dear. > > When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except > amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection > of the angle or the squaring of the circle. Cranks? Ad hom logical fallacy (again), dear. Rock solid proof? Prove it, dear. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-I2dnQRQ9Y3neGz9nZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36437 |
On 7/16/2021 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC) > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >>>>> A pathological program that executes a black box decider and >>>>> returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box >>>>> decider. >> >>>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >>>>> return: >> >>>>> 1) Program halts >>>>> 2) Program does not halt >>>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. >> >>>>> Halting problem solved. >> >>>> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. >>>> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set >>>> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if >>>> any of the students here would like to have a go at that? >> >>>> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a >>>> textbook on this topic.) >> >>> I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; >>> feel free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. >> >> That's quite uncalled for. Reading (or browsing) these interminable >> threads over the last months, it's quite clear that Ben is an expert. >> You, by contrast, are merely exercising your freedom of expression. >> >> That you, in all apparent seriousness, put forward your 1), 2), 3) >> above indicates you are far from an expert. These things aren't a >> matter of opinion, they're a matter of settled fact. > > Expert? I have a CompSci BSc (Hons) degree, dear. Also, "far from an > expert" is an attack on the person and not the argument, a logical > fallacy, dear. > >> >> When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except >> amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection >> of the angle or the squaring of the circle. > > Cranks? Ad hom logical fallacy (again), dear. > > Rock solid proof? Prove it, dear. > > /Flibble > People that are stuck in rebuttal mode switch to rhetoric when they run out of reasoning. If they weren't damn liars they would acknowledge that they have run out of reasoning rather than switch to rhetoric. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sct21b$10o$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36440 |
[ Malicious cross-posting removed. ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/16/2021 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC) >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 >>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >>>>>> A pathological program that executes a black box decider and >>>>>> returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box >>>>>> decider. >>>>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >>>>>> return: >>>>>> 1) Program halts >>>>>> 2) Program does not halt >>>>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. >>>>>> Halting problem solved. >>>>> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. >>>>> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set >>>>> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if >>>>> any of the students here would like to have a go at that? >>>>> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a >>>>> textbook on this topic.) >>>> I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; >>>> feel free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. >>> That's quite uncalled for. Reading (or browsing) these interminable >>> threads over the last months, it's quite clear that Ben is an expert. >>> You, by contrast, are merely exercising your freedom of expression. >>> That you, in all apparent seriousness, put forward your 1), 2), 3) >>> above indicates you are far from an expert. These things aren't a >>> matter of opinion, they're a matter of settled fact. >> Expert? I have a CompSci BSc (Hons) degree, dear. Also, "far from an >> expert" is an attack on the person and not the argument, a logical >> fallacy, dear. >>> When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except >>> amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection >>> of the angle or the squaring of the circle. >> Cranks? Ad hom logical fallacy (again), dear. >> Rock solid proof? Prove it, dear. >> /Flibble > People that are stuck in rebuttal mode switch to rhetoric when they run > out of reasoning. The only person in these discussions in "rebuttal mode" is you. You've been attempting to rebut the halting problem, according to your own admission, for around 20 years. Your version of "rhetoric", when you can't answer a reasoned point, is to dump lines of pseudo source code, or assembly code into your text, as though that were some answer to the point being made (it's not). > If they weren't damn liars they would acknowledge that they have run out > of reasoning rather than switch to rhetoric. They aren't liars. You're the liar, continually posting falsehood as though it had some sort of legitimacy. Your level of understanding makes it difficult to maintain a civilised factual conversation with you. You continually insult the people who are still trying to help you understand things. > -- > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott > "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre > minds." Einstein -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 22:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sct0vb$10o$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36437 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC) > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >> > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 >> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >> > A pathological program that executes a black box decider and >> >> > returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box >> >> > decider. >> >> > So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >> >> > return: >> >> > 1) Program halts >> >> > 2) Program does not halt >> >> > 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. >> >> > Halting problem solved. >> >> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. >> >> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set >> >> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if >> >> any of the students here would like to have a go at that? >> >> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a >> >> textbook on this topic.) >> > I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; >> > feel free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. >> That's quite uncalled for. Reading (or browsing) these interminable >> threads over the last months, it's quite clear that Ben is an expert. >> You, by contrast, are merely exercising your freedom of expression. >> That you, in all apparent seriousness, put forward your 1), 2), 3) >> above indicates you are far from an expert. These things aren't a >> matter of opinion, they're a matter of settled fact. > Expert? I have a CompSci BSc (Hons) degree, dear. That surprises me greatly. Congratulations! As part of your course, did you study things like the halting problem? > Also, "far from an expert" is an attack on the person and not the > argument, a logical fallacy, dear. No, it's an attack on your 1), 2), 3). No expert could have seriously put 3) forward. Like Peter Olcott, you want people to fall into the trap of taking established falsehoods seriously and debating them point by point. When somebody such as yourself posts falsehoods, particularly ludicrous falsehoods, it is folly to go into an equal status argument with those falsehoods. Rubbish must be decried as rubbish, and the people advancing falsehoods must also be so decried. The truth matters, and in this matter, the truth has been settled for many decades. Every program is either halting or not halting. Assuming the black box returns the correct result, it can only return 1) or 2). There is no such thing as a "pathological program" in this sense. How would it behave? Somehow neither halt, nor not halt? Get stuck in some sort of limbo where it's no longer running yet hasn't yet ceased to run? The notion is incoherent. Come on Mr Flibble, please assure us all that your 1), 2), 3) above was intended as some sort of joke, or parody, or something. >> When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except >> amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection >> of the angle or the squaring of the circle. > Cranks? Ad hom logical fallacy (again), dear. Not at all. A statement of plain fact. The truth of the halting problem is settled, and only cranks dispute it. > Rock solid proof? Prove it, dear. No. I don't have the energy. You can find proofs far more eloquent than I could give in the text books you should still have from your student days. Failing that, ask Peter Olcott. I believe he keeps them on his website. > /Flibble -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 17:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <z-udnW3GOL1-lW_9nZ2dnUU7-KPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36470 |
On 7/16/2021 5:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC) >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 >>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > >>>>>> A pathological program that executes a black box decider and >>>>>> returns the opposite result can be detected by the black box >>>>>> decider. > >>>>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >>>>>> return: > >>>>>> 1) Program halts >>>>>> 2) Program does not halt >>>>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. > >>>>>> Halting problem solved. > >>>>> This one came up every year when one teaches this material. Every. >>>>> Single. Year. In the end, I decided to bring it up myself and set >>>>> explaining what's wrong the argument as an exercise. I wonder if >>>>> any of the students here would like to have a go at that? > >>>>> (By student, I mean anyone reading this who has not read a >>>>> textbook on this topic.) > >>>> I simply don't believe you. You appear to be a pathological liar; >>>> feel free to provide evidence of what you are claiming. > >>> That's quite uncalled for. Reading (or browsing) these interminable >>> threads over the last months, it's quite clear that Ben is an expert. >>> You, by contrast, are merely exercising your freedom of expression. > >>> That you, in all apparent seriousness, put forward your 1), 2), 3) >>> above indicates you are far from an expert. These things aren't a >>> matter of opinion, they're a matter of settled fact. > >> Expert? I have a CompSci BSc (Hons) degree, dear. > > That surprises me greatly. Congratulations! As part of your course, did > you study things like the halting problem? > >> Also, "far from an expert" is an attack on the person and not the >> argument, a logical fallacy, dear. > > No, it's an attack on your 1), 2), 3). No expert could have seriously > put 3) forward. Like Peter Olcott, you want people to fall into the trap > of taking established falsehoods seriously and debating them point by > point. When somebody such as yourself posts falsehoods, particularly > ludicrous falsehoods, it is folly to go into an equal status argument > with those falsehoods. Rubbish must be decried as rubbish, and the > people advancing falsehoods must also be so decried. The truth matters, > and in this matter, the truth has been settled for many decades. > > Every program is either halting or not halting. Assuming the black box > returns the correct result, it can only return 1) or 2). There is no > such thing as a "pathological program" in this sense. That an input was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever a corresponding TM decides <is> the exact same pathology as the liar paradox. That an input was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever a corresponding TM decides <is> the exact same pathology as the liar paradox. That an input was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever a corresponding TM decides <is> the exact same pathology as the liar paradox. Flibble sees this. You as one of many mere sheep refuse to even look at the counter-argument. That is despicable. 1,2,3 is the same as my work from 2004. > How would it > behave? Somehow neither halt, nor not halt? Get stuck in some sort of > limbo where it's no longer running yet hasn't yet ceased to run? The > notion is incoherent. > > Come on Mr Flibble, please assure us all that your 1), 2), 3) above was > intended as some sort of joke, or parody, or something. > >>> When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except >>> amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection >>> of the angle or the squaring of the circle. > >> Cranks? Ad hom logical fallacy (again), dear. > > Not at all. A statement of plain fact. The truth of the halting problem > is settled, and only cranks dispute it. > >> Rock solid proof? Prove it, dear. > > No. I don't have the energy. You can find proofs far more eloquent than > I could give in the text books you should still have from your student > days. Failing that, ask Peter Olcott. I believe he keeps them on his > website. > >> /Flibble > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 22:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sct2nl$10o$4@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36472 |
[ Malicious cross-posting removed ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/16/2021 5:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC) >>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100 >>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: [ .... ] >>>>>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can >>>>>>> return: >>>>>>> 1) Program halts >>>>>>> 2) Program does not halt >>>>>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid. >>>>>>> Halting problem solved. [ .... ] >>> Also, "far from an expert" is an attack on the person and not the >>> argument, a logical fallacy, dear. >> No, it's an attack on your 1), 2), 3). No expert could have seriously >> put 3) forward. Like Peter Olcott, you want people to fall into the >> trap of taking established falsehoods seriously and debating them >> point by point. When somebody such as yourself posts falsehoods, >> particularly ludicrous falsehoods, it is folly to go into an equal >> status argument with those falsehoods. Rubbish must be decried as >> rubbish, and the people advancing falsehoods must also be so decried. >> The truth matters, and in this matter, the truth has been settled for >> many decades. >> Every program is either halting or not halting. Assuming the black box >> returns the correct result, it can only return 1) or 2). There is no >> such thing as a "pathological program" in this sense. > That an input was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever a > corresponding TM decides <is> the exact same pathology as the liar paradox. What corresponding TM? I never mentioned one. Just that the program you would like to label as "pathalogical" either halts or it doesn't. There is no such thing as a "pathalogical" program in this sense. I note you decline to address my questions (below) as to its behaviour. > Flibble sees this. You as one of many mere sheep refuse to even look at > the counter-argument. That is despicable. I have looked at it, analysed it in detail, and it is rubbish. A program either terminates or it does not. There is no magical third behaviour. > 1,2,3 is the same as my work from 2004. >> How would it behave? Somehow neither halt, nor not halt? Get stuck >> in some sort of limbo where it's no longer running yet hasn't yet >> ceased to run? The notion is incoherent. >> Come on Mr Flibble, please assure us all that your 1), 2), 3) above was >> intended as some sort of joke, or parody, or something. >>>> When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except >>>> amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection >>>> of the angle or the squaring of the circle. >>> Cranks? Ad hom logical fallacy (again), dear. >> Not at all. A statement of plain fact. The truth of the halting problem >> is settled, and only cranks dispute it. >>> Rock solid proof? Prove it, dear. >> No. I don't have the energy. You can find proofs far more eloquent than >> I could give in the text books you should still have from your student >> days. Failing that, ask Peter Olcott. I believe he keeps them on his >> website. >>> /Flibble > -- > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott > "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre > minds." Einstein -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 23:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <-72dneG7bePpxG_9nZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36477 |
On 7/16/2021 5:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Malicious cross-posting removed ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/16/2021 5:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100
>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>>>>>>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can
>>>>>>>> return:
>
>>>>>>>> 1) Program halts
>>>>>>>> 2) Program does not halt
>>>>>>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid.
>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>>>> Also, "far from an expert" is an attack on the person and not the
>>>> argument, a logical fallacy, dear.
>
>>> No, it's an attack on your 1), 2), 3). No expert could have seriously
>>> put 3) forward. Like Peter Olcott, you want people to fall into the
>>> trap of taking established falsehoods seriously and debating them
>>> point by point. When somebody such as yourself posts falsehoods,
>>> particularly ludicrous falsehoods, it is folly to go into an equal
>>> status argument with those falsehoods. Rubbish must be decried as
>>> rubbish, and the people advancing falsehoods must also be so decried.
>>> The truth matters, and in this matter, the truth has been settled for
>>> many decades.
>
>>> Every program is either halting or not halting. Assuming the black box
>>> returns the correct result, it can only return 1) or 2). There is no
>>> such thing as a "pathological program" in this sense.
>
>> That an input was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever a
>> corresponding TM decides <is> the exact same pathology as the liar paradox.
>
> What corresponding TM? I never mentioned one. Just that the program you
> would like to label as "pathalogical" either halts or it doesn't. There
> is no such thing as a "pathalogical" program in this sense. I note you
> decline to address my questions (below) as to its behaviour.
>
rec routine P
§L:if T[P] go to L
Return §
// Strachey(1965) "An impossible program" CPL translated to C
// https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
void P()
{
if (T((u32)P))
L: goto L;
}
Which Boolean value can the Strachey T return to the Strachey P that is
the correct halt status of P ?
>> Flibble sees this. You as one of many mere sheep refuse to even look at
>> the counter-argument. That is despicable.
>
> I have looked at it, analysed it in detail, and it is rubbish. A program
> either terminates or it does not. There is no magical third behaviour.
>
>> 1,2,3 is the same as my work from 2004.
>
>>> How would it behave? Somehow neither halt, nor not halt? Get stuck
>>> in some sort of limbo where it's no longer running yet hasn't yet
>>> ceased to run? The notion is incoherent.
>
>>> Come on Mr Flibble, please assure us all that your 1), 2), 3) above was
>>> intended as some sort of joke, or parody, or something.
>
>>>>> When it comes to the halting problem, there is no dispute, except
>>>>> amongst cranks. It has a rock solid proof, much as do the trisection
>>>>> of the angle or the squaring of the circle.
>
>>>> Cranks? Ad hom logical fallacy (again), dear.
>
>>> Not at all. A statement of plain fact. The truth of the halting problem
>>> is settled, and only cranks dispute it.
>
>>>> Rock solid proof? Prove it, dear.
>
>>> No. I don't have the energy. You can find proofs far more eloquent than
>>> I could give in the text books you should still have from your student
>>> days. Failing that, ask Peter Olcott. I believe he keeps them on his
>>> website.
>
>>>> /Flibble
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 09:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <scu6qs$1q6c$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36491 |
[ Malicious cross-posting removed ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/16/2021 5:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2021 5:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100
>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can
>>>>>>>>> return:
>>>>>>>>> 1) Program halts
>>>>>>>>> 2) Program does not halt
>>>>>>>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid.
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved.
[ .... ]
>>>> Every program is either halting or not halting. Assuming the black
>>>> box returns the correct result, it can only return 1) or 2). There
>>>> is no such thing as a "pathological program" in this sense.
>>> That an input was intentionally defined to do the opposite of
>>> whatever a corresponding TM decides <is> the exact same pathology as
>>> the liar paradox.
>> What corresponding TM? I never mentioned one. Just that the program you
>> would like to label as "pathalogical" either halts or it doesn't. There
>> is no such thing as a "pathalogical" program in this sense. I note you
>> decline to address my questions (below) as to its behaviour.
> rec routine P
> §L:if T[P] go to L
> Return §
> // Strachey(1965) "An impossible program" CPL translated to C
> // https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
> void P()
> {
> if (T((u32)P))
> L: goto L;
> }
> Which Boolean value can the Strachey T return to the Strachey P that is
> the correct halt status of P ?
You're evading the question. This "pathalogical" program that neither
halts nor fails to halt - what does its behaviour look like? You have no
answer. There is no "pathalogical" behaviour, here. The program either
halts or fails to halt. There is no third possibility.
Regarding your question, which is something completely different, the
answer is that the T cannot return a correct halt status of P. Why is
that a problem? We've known for many decades that this is the case.
>>> Flibble sees this. You as one of many mere sheep refuse to even look at
>>> the counter-argument. That is despicable.
>> I have looked at it, analysed it in detail, and it is rubbish. A program
>> either terminates or it does not. There is no magical third behaviour.
[ .... ]
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 09:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <5uednf4Kv82ldm_9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36498 |
On 7/17/2021 4:10 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Malicious cross-posting removed ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/16/2021 5:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/2021 5:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:28:12 +0100
>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>>>>>>>>>> So there are THREE possible results the black box decider can
>>>>>>>>>> return:
>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Program halts
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Program does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Program is pathological and can be discarded as invalid.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>>>>> Every program is either halting or not halting. Assuming the black
>>>>> box returns the correct result, it can only return 1) or 2). There
>>>>> is no such thing as a "pathological program" in this sense.
>
>>>> That an input was intentionally defined to do the opposite of
>>>> whatever a corresponding TM decides <is> the exact same pathology as
>>>> the liar paradox.
>
>>> What corresponding TM? I never mentioned one. Just that the program you
>>> would like to label as "pathalogical" either halts or it doesn't. There
>>> is no such thing as a "pathalogical" program in this sense. I note you
>>> decline to address my questions (below) as to its behaviour.
>
>
>> rec routine P
>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>> Return §
>
>
>> // Strachey(1965) "An impossible program" CPL translated to C
>> // https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>> void P()
>> {
>> if (T((u32)P))
>> L: goto L;
>> }
>
>> Which Boolean value can the Strachey T return to the Strachey P that is
>> the correct halt status of P ?
>
> You're evading the question. This "pathalogical" program that neither
> halts nor fails to halt - what does its behaviour look like? You have no
> answer. There is no "pathalogical" behaviour, here. The program either
> halts or fails to halt. There is no third possibility.
>
> Regarding your question, which is something completely different, the
> answer is that the T cannot return a correct halt status of P. Why is
> that a problem? We've known for many decades that this is the case.
>
What has not been know for many decades is that undecidable decision
problems are merely errors and nothing more.
Mathematicians really hate to go to the philosophical foundation of the
notion of truth itself and instead continue the religion of what they
learned by rote.
>>>> Flibble sees this. You as one of many mere sheep refuse to even look at
>>>> the counter-argument. That is despicable.
>
>>> I have looked at it, analysed it in detail, and it is rubbish. A program
>>> either terminates or it does not. There is no magical third behaviour.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 17:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <875yx8oqmv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36525 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/17/2021 4:10 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Regarding your question, which is something completely different, the >> answer is that the T cannot return a correct halt status of P. Why is >> that a problem? We've known for many decades that this is the case. > > What has not been know for many decades is that undecidable decision > problems are merely errors and nothing more. Don't be silly. Asking if a program halts or not is not an error or a bad question. Asking if a context-free grammar is ambiguous or is not an error or a bad question. Asking if two groups are isomorphic or not is not an error of a bad question. You just say these things for the sake of having an opinion. The set of subsets of N is uncountable. The set of Turing machines is countable. There must be an uncountable number of undecidable sets of numbers. That we've been able to find a few is handy, but it's not surprising. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 12:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <obKdnWGIgLybk279nZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36549 |
On 7/17/2021 11:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/17/2021 4:10 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> Regarding your question, which is something completely different, the >>> answer is that the T cannot return a correct halt status of P. Why is >>> that a problem? We've known for many decades that this is the case. >> >> What has not been know for many decades is that undecidable decision >> problems are merely errors and nothing more. > > Don't be silly. Asking if a program halts or not is not an error or a > bad question. Asking if a context-free grammar is ambiguous or is not > an error or a bad question. Asking if two groups are isomorphic or not > is not an error of a bad question. You just say these things for the > sake of having an opinion. > As always you diligently make sure to ignore the full context. (1) When we ask does every element of the set of valid declarative sentences have as associated Boolean value? The answer is yes. (2) When we ask does every element of the set of sentences have as associated Boolean value? The answer is no. When you ignore the full context you ignore the distinction between (1) and (2). In this case it is an honest mistake on your part because the distinction can be difficult to fully appreciate. > The set of subsets of N is uncountable. The set of Turing machines is > countable. There must be an uncountable number of undecidable sets of > numbers. That we've been able to find a few is handy, but it's not > surprising. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-18 02:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <87v958l7in.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36555 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/17/2021 11:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/17/2021 4:10 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>> Regarding your question, which is something completely different, the >>>> answer is that the T cannot return a correct halt status of P. Why is >>>> that a problem? We've known for many decades that this is the case. >>> >>> What has not been know for many decades is that undecidable decision >>> problems are merely errors and nothing more. >> Don't be silly. Asking if a program halts or not is not an error or a >> bad question. Asking if a context-free grammar is ambiguous or is not >> an error or a bad question. Asking if two groups are isomorphic or not >> is not an error of a bad question. You just say these things for the >> sake of having an opinion. >> > > As always you diligently make sure to ignore the full context. You call is "extraneous complexity" but when you ignore it, it is usually crucial. > (1) When we ask does every element of the set of valid declarative > sentences have as associated Boolean value? The answer is yes. > > (2) When we ask does every element of the set of sentences have as > associated Boolean value? The answer is no. > > When you ignore the full context you ignore the distinction between > (1) and (2). In this case it is an honest mistake on your part because > the distinction can be difficult to fully appreciate. It's a trivial distinction. And an irrelevant one because every instance of the halting problem has a correct yes/no answer. For H to be a halt decider, H(P,I) must be true iff P(I) halts. The correct answer does not depend on anything but P and I. It does not depend on who or what we "ask". In fact, P(I) ether is or is not a finite computation even if we never ask anyone or anything about it. P(P) halts (according to you). H(P,P) == 0 (according to you). That is wrong (according to everyone but you). As far as I can see, there are no facts in dispute, only waffle. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-18 12:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <20210718122638.000062ff@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36576 |
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 02:45:20 +0100 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > > > On 7/17/2021 11:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> > >>> On 7/17/2021 4:10 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> > >>>> Regarding your question, which is something completely > >>>> different, the answer is that the T cannot return a correct halt > >>>> status of P. Why is that a problem? We've known for many > >>>> decades that this is the case. > >>> > >>> What has not been know for many decades is that undecidable > >>> decision problems are merely errors and nothing more. > >> Don't be silly. Asking if a program halts or not is not an error > >> or a bad question. Asking if a context-free grammar is ambiguous > >> or is not an error or a bad question. Asking if two groups are > >> isomorphic or not is not an error of a bad question. You just say > >> these things for the sake of having an opinion. > >> > > > > As always you diligently make sure to ignore the full context. > > You call is "extraneous complexity" but when you ignore it, it is > usually crucial. > > > (1) When we ask does every element of the set of valid declarative > > sentences have as associated Boolean value? The answer is yes. > > > > (2) When we ask does every element of the set of sentences have as > > associated Boolean value? The answer is no. > > > > When you ignore the full context you ignore the distinction between > > (1) and (2). In this case it is an honest mistake on your part > > because the distinction can be difficult to fully appreciate. > > It's a trivial distinction. And an irrelevant one because every > instance of the halting problem has a correct yes/no answer. > > For H to be a halt decider, H(P,I) must be true iff P(I) halts. The > correct answer does not depend on anything but P and I. It does not > depend on who or what we "ask". In fact, P(I) ether is or is not a > finite computation even if we never ask anyone or anything about it. > > P(P) halts (according to you). H(P,P) == 0 (according to you). That > is wrong (according to everyone but you). > > As far as I can see, there are no facts in dispute, only waffle. > They go with beans, bangers, bacon, burgers, fish, fingers, fish fingers, eggs in, eggs on, gammon, steak, chops. Grill 'em, bake 'em, fry 'em, eat 'em, Birds Eye potato waffles, they're waffly versatile! /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 09:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory)[ Strachey P ] |
| Message-ID | <wrudnVWwefGTEmj9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36576 |
On 7/17/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 7/17/2021 11:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2021 4:10 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Regarding your question, which is something completely different, the
>>>>> answer is that the T cannot return a correct halt status of P. Why is
>>>>> that a problem? We've known for many decades that this is the case.
>>>>
>>>> What has not been know for many decades is that undecidable decision
>>>> problems are merely errors and nothing more.
>>> Don't be silly. Asking if a program halts or not is not an error or a
>>> bad question. Asking if a context-free grammar is ambiguous or is not
>>> an error or a bad question. Asking if two groups are isomorphic or not
>>> is not an error of a bad question. You just say these things for the
>>> sake of having an opinion.
>>>
>>
>> As always you diligently make sure to ignore the full context.
>
> You call is "extraneous complexity" but when you ignore it, it is
> usually crucial.
>
>> (1) When we ask does every element of the set of valid declarative
>> sentences have as associated Boolean value? The answer is yes.
>>
>> (2) When we ask does every element of the set of sentences have as
>> associated Boolean value? The answer is no.
>>
>> When you ignore the full context you ignore the distinction between
>> (1) and (2). In this case it is an honest mistake on your part because
>> the distinction can be difficult to fully appreciate.
>
> It's a trivial distinction. And an irrelevant one because every
> instance of the halting problem has a correct yes/no answer.
>
> For H to be a halt decider, H(P,I) must be true iff P(I) halts. The
> correct answer does not depend on anything but P and I. It does not
> depend on who or what we "ask". In fact, P(I) ether is or is not a
> finite computation even if we never ask anyone or anything about it.
>
> P(P) halts (according to you). H(P,P) == 0 (according to you). That is
> wrong (according to everyone but you).
>
> As far as I can see, there are no facts in dispute, only waffle.
>
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
P((u32)P);
}
The fact is that the above computation never ever halts unless some H
aborts some P thus proving beyond all possible doubt that H[0] does
correctly decide that P[2] (zero based addressing) never halts.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web