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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 09:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved (Black Box Decider Theory) [ Flibble is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <K-6dneGZO-lVDWj9nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36589 |
On 7/18/2021 4:43 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 17/07/2021 18:40, olcott wrote: >> On 7/17/2021 9:37 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 16/07/2021 21:56, 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. >>> >>> So do lots of people - but some paid attention in class, and some have >>> enough mathematical understanding to know how proof by contradiction >>> works, and also to know that you cannot "solve" a problem by re-defining >>> it to suit yourself. >>> >> >> He is much smarter than most here to understand that: >> when an input is deliberately defined to do the opposite of whatever its >> corresponding halt decider decides this has pathological communication >> between the input and the halt decider. > > Mr. Flibble might be smart - I wouldn't put it past him to be trolling > all along here. > If Flibble was trolling he would not have correctly paraphrased the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error this accurately: [Olcott's theory] On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 12:00:56 PM UTC-5, 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. > > /Flibble >> >> Every scientist knows that the independent variable and the dependent >> variable must be completely isolated so that the only effect on the >> dependent variable comes from the independent variable. >> >> By providing a pathological back channel where the dependent variable >> can effect the behavior of the independent variable the halt status >> analysis is tainted. > > The halting problem concerns finding a program H that takes an > /arbitrary/ program P and an /arbitrary/ input X and determines whether > it will halt or not (giving a yes/no answer). > Pathological Input to a halt decider is defined as any input that was defined to do the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt decider decides. This question can only be correctly answered after the pathology has been removed. When a halt decider only acts as a pure simulator of its input until after its halt status decision is made there is no feedback loop of back channel communication between the halt decider and its input that can prevent a correct halt status decision. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > Now, I agree that the simplest and most common proof that there cannot > be such a program H is based on a "pathological" case from proof by > contradiction : > > G() = > if H(G, G) then loop forever > else 0 > > With that program, H(G, G) is guaranteed to give the wrong answer - > therefore no such H exists. > > Since that this applies for /any/ conceivable H, there are no "dependent > variables". This (when made rigorous) proves that the halting problem > is undecidable. > > > But suppose - just for fun - we imagined that you are right - what would > that give us? > > It would mean you have a claim (without proof - but we are assuming you > are correct) that you can find an algorithm H that correctly tells if a > given computation will halt or not, but only works for some functions. > If you call H with input (P, X) which it likes, it will correctly give > out yes or no. If it doesn't like (P, X) - the input is "pathological", > then it might say "yes", it might say "no", it might say "neither", it > might never stop with an answer. > > Basically, it would be useless. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sd4ncl$2q3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36434 |
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. So what is wrong with this theorem, dear? THEOREM 1: There are numbers k and s and a program A(n,m) satisfying the following conditions. 1. If A(n,m) halts, then C_n(m) diverges. 2. For all n, C_k(n) = A(n,n) and C_s(n) = Ck(s). 3. A(k,s) halts and for all n, A(s,n) diverges. Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive enumeration of all possible programs. The proof is here. https://xnewberry.tripod.com/Theorem.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 16:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21ac59f5-cf14-4c78-8706-d42d9af9e110n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36662 |
On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: > Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive enumeration of > all possible programs. I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old diagonal argument should apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 17:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sd7lov$60s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36737 |
On 2021-07-20 17:16, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: > >> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive enumeration of >> all possible programs. > > I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old diagonal > argument should apply. For any given programming language, all programs are expressible as finite strings over a finite alphabet, which means they are enumerable. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e6c2f6a-7156-40e1-b4ba-239c2912e344n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36739 |
On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-07-20 17:16, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: > > > >> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive enumeration of > >> all possible programs. > > > > I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old diagonal > > argument should apply. > For any given programming language, all programs are expressible as > finite strings over a finite alphabet, which means they are enumerable. > André Yes - that was my original impression. But that implies programs must be written in a finite programming language. Is this really a generally accepted characteristic of programs? Are programs generally accepted to be finite? Infinite programs are easy enough to define. I guess what I want is "all finite programs". Now I imagine I should consider non-finite alphabets. I think that would be a dry well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 18:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sd7q96$scs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36740 |
On 2021-07-20 17:37, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-07-20 17:16, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: >>> >>>> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive enumeration of >>>> all possible programs. >>> >>> I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old diagonal >>> argument should apply. >> For any given programming language, all programs are expressible as >> finite strings over a finite alphabet, which means they are enumerable. >> André > > Yes - that was my original impression. But that implies programs must be > written in a finite programming language. Is this really a generally > accepted characteristic of programs? Are programs generally accepted > to be finite? Infinite programs are easy enough to define. AFAIK computational theory assumes that all program descriptions are finite. > I guess what I want is "all finite programs". > > Now I imagine I should consider non-finite alphabets. I think that would be > a dry well. Yeah, not sure why I threw in the 'finite alphabet' bit. Just covering all my bases, I suppose. I'm pretty sure that alphabets are considered as finite by definition. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <TmKJI.4369$4q3.261@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #36747 |
On 7/20/21 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-07-20 17:37, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2021-07-20 17:16, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: >>>> >>>>> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive >>>>> enumeration of >>>>> all possible programs. >>>> >>>> I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old >>>> diagonal >>>> argument should apply. >>> For any given programming language, all programs are expressible as >>> finite strings over a finite alphabet, which means they are enumerable. >>> André >> >> Yes - that was my original impression. But that implies programs must be >> written in a finite programming language. Is this really a generally >> accepted characteristic of programs? Are programs generally accepted >> to be finite? Infinite programs are easy enough to define. > > AFAIK computational theory assumes that all program descriptions are > finite. > Turing Machines have a Finite algorithm, with an unbounded data store. This means that PROGRAMS are enumerable. The diagonal argument also presumes that programs are numerable. There are an infinite number of programs, but it is a countable infinite. >> I guess what I want is "all finite programs". >> >> Now I imagine I should consider non-finite alphabets. I think that >> would be >> a dry well. > > Yeah, not sure why I threw in the 'finite alphabet' bit. Just covering > all my bases, I suppose. I'm pretty sure that alphabets are considered > as finite by definition. > > André >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sd8f1k$10gg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36747 |
On 7/20/2021 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-07-20 17:37, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2021-07-20 17:16, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: >>>> >>>>> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive >>>>> enumeration of >>>>> all possible programs. >>>> >>>> I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old >>>> diagonal >>>> argument should apply. >>> For any given programming language, all programs are expressible as >>> finite strings over a finite alphabet, which means they are enumerable. >>> André >> >> Yes - that was my original impression. But that implies programs must be >> written in a finite programming language. Is this really a generally >> accepted characteristic of programs? Are programs generally accepted >> to be finite? Infinite programs are easy enough to define. > > AFAIK computational theory assumes that all program descriptions are > finite. > >> I guess what I want is "all finite programs". >> >> Now I imagine I should consider non-finite alphabets. I think that >> would be >> a dry well. > > Yeah, not sure why I threw in the 'finite alphabet' bit. Just covering > all my bases, I suppose. I'm pretty sure that alphabets are considered > as finite by definition. A finite equation, say: z = z^n + c can add onto a program. Iterating it will most likely might make the program crash, or run and act in very odd ways. The iterates can be mapped to instructions. Beware, and run this in a sandbox!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f003b6b-6fc8-4bfd-a63c-82286cbed6e6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36747 |
On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 01:38:00 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-07-20 17:37, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote: > >> On 2021-07-20 17:16, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: > >>> > >>>> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive enumeration of > >>>> all possible programs. > >>> > >>> I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old diagonal > >>> argument should apply. > >> For any given programming language, all programs are expressible as > >> finite strings over a finite alphabet, which means they are enumerable. > >> André > > > > Yes - that was my original impression. But that implies programs must be > > written in a finite programming language. Is this really a generally > > accepted characteristic of programs? Are programs generally accepted > > to be finite? Infinite programs are easy enough to define. > AFAIK computational theory assumes that all program descriptions are finite. > > I guess what I want is "all finite programs". > > > > Now I imagine I should consider non-finite alphabets. I think that would be > > a dry well. > Yeah, not sure why I threw in the 'finite alphabet' bit. Just covering > all my bases, I suppose. I'm pretty sure that alphabets are considered > as finite by definition. > Chinese has an open alphabet. New glyphs can be added as new words come into the language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 09:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sd9e7k$org$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36778 |
On 2021-07-21 09:17, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 01:38:00 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-07-20 17:37, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2021-07-20 17:16, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive enumeration of >>>>>> all possible programs. >>>>> >>>>> I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old diagonal >>>>> argument should apply. >>>> For any given programming language, all programs are expressible as >>>> finite strings over a finite alphabet, which means they are enumerable. >>>> André >>> >>> Yes - that was my original impression. But that implies programs must be >>> written in a finite programming language. Is this really a generally >>> accepted characteristic of programs? Are programs generally accepted >>> to be finite? Infinite programs are easy enough to define. >> AFAIK computational theory assumes that all program descriptions are finite. >>> I guess what I want is "all finite programs". >>> >>> Now I imagine I should consider non-finite alphabets. I think that would be >>> a dry well. >> Yeah, not sure why I threw in the 'finite alphabet' bit. Just covering >> all my bases, I suppose. I'm pretty sure that alphabets are considered >> as finite by definition. >> > Chinese has an open alphabet. New glyphs can be added as new words come > into the language. The Han character set is unbounded, but it's still finite. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-20 23:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sd8enj$utp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36737 |
dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Newberry wrote: > >> Here C_n(*) is a program with index n in some exhaustive >> enumeration of all possible programs. > > I think "all possible programs" is not enumerable. The same old > diagonal argument should apply. They certainly are enumerable. The diagonal argument has nothing to do with the enumeration of computer programs, URM programs or Turing machines. In fact as Richard Damon pointed out the diagonal argument presumes that programs are enumerable. BTW, the idea of A(n,m) and C_k(n) such that a) If A(n,m) halts, then C_n(m) diverges, and b) C_k(n) = A(n,n) comes from Roger Penrose, 'Shadows of the Mind', pp. 73-75
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 21:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r1fyou3f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36419 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > 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. What a cynical world view you must have. I wonder why you think I'd lie about what students used to say in class discussions. Anyway, I see that one of the students has, in fact, stepped up! Did you follow what PO said? Do you have a counter-argument to his? I'll wait and see. (You should of course reply to his post not here.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 22:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210716220605.0000534e@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36447 |
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 21:57:08 +0100 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > > > 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. > > What a cynical world view you must have. I wonder why you think I'd > lie about what students used to say in class discussions. Anyway, I > see that one of the students has, in fact, stepped up! Did you > follow what PO said? Do you have a counter-argument to his? I'll > wait and see. (You should of course reply to his post not here.) > If you are referring to Rice's Theorem then that theorem is in error because a pathological self reference doesn't consider a black box decider which can ALWAYS detect when it is being referenced. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <E6OdnTUocL1UaGz9nZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36448 |
On 7/16/2021 4:06 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 21:57:08 +0100 > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >>> 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. >> >> What a cynical world view you must have. I wonder why you think I'd >> lie about what students used to say in class discussions. Anyway, I >> see that one of the students has, in fact, stepped up! Did you >> follow what PO said? Do you have a counter-argument to his? I'll >> wait and see. (You should of course reply to his post not here.) >> > > If you are referring to Rice's Theorem then that theorem is in error > because a pathological self reference doesn't consider a black box > decider which can ALWAYS detect when it is being referenced. > > /Flibble > Yes an it does this by sprinkling majick fairy dust. -- 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 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210716222214.00006584@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36454 |
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 16:10:34 -0500 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > On 7/16/2021 4:06 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 21:57:08 +0100 > > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> What a cynical world view you must have. I wonder why you think > >> I'd lie about what students used to say in class discussions. > >> Anyway, I see that one of the students has, in fact, stepped up! > >> Did you follow what PO said? Do you have a counter-argument to > >> his? I'll wait and see. (You should of course reply to his post > >> not here.) > > > > If you are referring to Rice's Theorem then that theorem is in error > > because a pathological self reference doesn't consider a black box > > decider which can ALWAYS detect when it is being referenced. > > > > /Flibble > > > > Yes an it does this by sprinkling majick fairy dust. Then you need to read up on what "black box" actually means. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uc2dndPOD-MbZ2z9nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36456 |
On 7/16/2021 4:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 16:10:34 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > >> On 7/16/2021 4:06 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 21:57:08 +0100 >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> What a cynical world view you must have. I wonder why you think >>>> I'd lie about what students used to say in class discussions. >>>> Anyway, I see that one of the students has, in fact, stepped up! >>>> Did you follow what PO said? Do you have a counter-argument to >>>> his? I'll wait and see. (You should of course reply to his post >>>> not here.) >>> >>> If you are referring to Rice's Theorem then that theorem is in error >>> because a pathological self reference doesn't consider a black box >>> decider which can ALWAYS detect when it is being referenced. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> Yes an it does this by sprinkling majick fairy dust. > > Then you need to read up on what "black box" actually means. > > /Flibble > I have been a software engineer for decades. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 13:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c4OdnaqLn9AVTWz9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36412 |
On 7/16/2021 1:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> 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
>
Rice's theorem says that pathological self-reference is (in at least
some cases) an undecidable property. Unless halting is decidable then
neither is pathological self-reference.
Halting <is> decidable.
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
H aborts its input on the basis that the above call from P to H(P,P) is
essentially infinitely recursive.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
--
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 | 2021-07-16 21:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wnpqoul7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36418 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 7/16/2021 1:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> Rice's theorem says that pathological self-reference is (in at least
> some cases) an undecidable property. Unless halting is decidable then
> neither is pathological self-reference.
I am cheered to see you've been paying attention.
> Halting <is> decidable.
No, but more specifically, you've told us that your H gets this case
wrong:
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
H(P,P) == 0 but P(P) halts. These are facts that come from you.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <E6OdnToocL2yaGz9nZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36446 |
On 7/16/2021 3:46 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 7/16/2021 1:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Rice's theorem says that pathological self-reference is (in at least
>> some cases) an undecidable property. Unless halting is decidable then
>> neither is pathological self-reference.
>
> I am cheered to see you've been paying attention.
>
>> Halting <is> decidable.
>
> No, but more specifically, you've told us that your H gets this case
> wrong:
>
No you God damned liar I never said that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>> if (H(x, x))
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>> }
>
> H(P,P) == 0 but P(P) halts. These are facts that come from you.
>
--
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 | 2021-07-16 23:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a6mlq2zw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36451 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 7/16/2021 3:46 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 7/16/2021 1:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rice's theorem says that pathological self-reference is (in at least
>>> some cases) an undecidable property. Unless halting is decidable then
>>> neither is pathological self-reference.
>> I am cheered to see you've been paying attention.
>>
>>> Halting <is> decidable.
>> No, but more specifically, you've told us that your H gets this case
>> wrong:
>
> No you God damned liar I never said that.
It's true that you never admitted it was wrong, but you told us that
H(P,P) == 0 and that P(P) halts. That's the wrong answer, and you knew
it at the time.
I suppose, if you told me point-blank, I would have to accept that you
did not know what the right answer for a halt decider was back then.
But did you really not know, despite endlessly quoting Linz?
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>> if (H(x, x))
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>> }
>> H(P,P) == 0 but P(P) halts. These are facts that come from you.
You have never once disputed these facts. How can you? They come from
you and you are never wrong (about anything important). The only
resolution consistent with your self-image is that everyone else must be
wrong about what the halting problem is. There, sorted!
But that's quite recent. For most of last few years, you've given every
sign that you accept that the halting problem is as it has always been
defined.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web