Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36507 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-17 13:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-17 07:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 13:22 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 14:37 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:06 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 09:17 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:24 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 14:34 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:38 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 14:45 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 15:12 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) [ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:53 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-17 20:38 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 08:04 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 16:12 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 08:25 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 16:28 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 08:37 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:58 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 14:17 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:23 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 17:45 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 12:08 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:17 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 15:19 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 20:51 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 16:48 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-18 10:57 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-18 07:36 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 08:58 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-19 08:23 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:25 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-20 17:35 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 13:26 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 14:04 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 12:27 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 13:49 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 17:14 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 16:27 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 18:20 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 18:34 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 21:04 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 20:24 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 22:06 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 20:21 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 21:26 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 22:53 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 22:02 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 23:24 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 22:12 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 23:32 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 09:11 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:03 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:11 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:42 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 10:16 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 21:23 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:45 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 10:22 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 12:23 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 10:41 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 12:26 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 13:54 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 13:26 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 14:44 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 12:56 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 15:09 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:29 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 15:02 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 21:08 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 12:55 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 11:29 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 12:51 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 12:19 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 13:49 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 13:22 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 14:43 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 13:12 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:07 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 14:32 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:50 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 15:06 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:22 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 14:38 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 15:57 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 17:21 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 15:53 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 16:59 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 20:21 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 18:53 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 13:07 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 15:29 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 14:08 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 19:33 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 18:07 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 12:14 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 12:06 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 10:39 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-17 15:55 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 09:18 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:20 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:13 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 06:57 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:17 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 07:36 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <leOdnUtsXda9kW79nZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36539 |
On 7/17/2021 10:28 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 08:25:12 -0700 (PDT) > wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 23:12:51 UTC+8, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 08:04:56 -0700 (PDT) >>> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:38:30 UTC+8, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:34:53 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:20:42 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:22:56 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Not really - you don't have a universal halting >>>>>>>>>>>> decider here by design. And even if you did, the >>>>>>>>>>>> signature wouldn't do anything to prevent the >>>>>>>>>>>> existence of the programs which have an "invalid >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship" with D. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The point is that this "invalid relationship" is >>>>>>>>>>> DETECTABLE by the black box decider. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think, but I'm not sure, that such relationships >>>>>>>>>> cannot be detected, that it's another one of these >>>>>>>>>> limitation theorems. Ben could probably say more on >>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This "invalid relationship" only exists for programs >>>>>>>>>>> which are deliberately designed to defeat the decider >>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not at all. There will be random programs, not >>>>>>>>>> deliberately designed, which will also have such a >>>>>>>>>> relationship with the purported decider. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> .... which are uninteresting cases because presumably >>>>>>>>>>> we are using a decider to decide legitimate programs >>>>>>>>>>> that have serve some useful purpose beyond the HP >>>>>>>>>>> itself. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you're not talking about the standard halting >>>>>>>>>> problem. That shows the impossibility of a decider >>>>>>>>>> which can decide ANY program. If you limit the scope of >>>>>>>>>> the programs handled, then you might well construct a >>>>>>>>>> practically useful partial decider. Difficult, but >>>>>>>>>> possible. There are probably theorems about the sort of >>>>>>>>>> things that are possible here, but I don't know them. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> None of this has any relevance for the theoremhood of >>>>>>>>>> the halting problem result itself. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Disagree: having a third result for invalid pathological >>>>>>>>> programs whilst novel is still a result, i.e. a decision >>>>>>>>> reached in finite time. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or >>>>>>>> pathological about these programs, and they can run and >>>>>>>> halt or not halt like any other program. It is only in >>>>>>>> their relationship with H where they are special, in that >>>>>>>> H is unable to determine their halting status correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's assuming it's possible for H to single out such >>>>>>>> programs. I don't know if this is possible in the general >>>>>>>> case, but I suspect it's not. Again, Ben or Richard might >>>>>>>> know more about this. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> But all this is moving away from the halting problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Disagree: as the decider is a black box if it can always >>>>>>> detect when it is being invoked, either directly by the >>>>>>> trusted operator or indirectly by P which does not have the >>>>>>> trusted operator's private key in order to digitally sign P >>>>>>> and I that is passed to the decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> P might contain a copy of D's algorithm (with or without the >>>>>> key stuff), and indeed P might contain a copy of the private >>>>>> key. Such programs _exist_, whether or not we could as humans >>>>>> create them. As I say, I don't think it's possible for D to >>>>>> detect an algorithm which does the same as D. >>>>>> >>>>>> But in any case, D is not behaving as a universal halting >>>>>> detector, in that it doesn't return halts/doesn't halt for >>>>>> all input programs. >>>>> I suggest you read up on what constitutes a black box: if the >>>>> black box's algorithm has been copied then it is no longer a >>>>> black box. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>> >>>> Quote carefully, kid. You do not seem to read it. >>>> ...a black box is a system which can be viewed in terms of its >>>> inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics),... >>>> >>>> This is illustrated in Example 2 >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/3yP71I5puns >>> What you quoted does NOT contradict what I said. If you don't have >>> anything of value to add to the discussion then it is best to just >>> keep your fucking mouth shut. >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> Feel losed? Be happy. >> >> A black box program can be copied, reused by invoking...etc. >> >> This is illustrated in Example 2 (do not feel shy) >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/3yP71I5puns > > Except you are ignoring the fact that a digital signature from a > trusted operator is one of the parameters to the black box so it cannot > be "re-used by invoking etc" unless you have the trusted operator's > private key. Again: best to keep your fucking mouth shut if you have > nothing of value to add, pal. > > /Flibble > Another program is defined that strips out all the digital signature stuff and then this program has a corresponding pathological input defined for it. Unless your black box uses my method is it helpless to decide whether or not this other TM/input pair has pathological self-reference. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <scvhd6$1ssk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36539 |
On 7/17/2021 8:28 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 08:25:12 -0700 (PDT) > wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 23:12:51 UTC+8, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 08:04:56 -0700 (PDT) >>> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:38:30 UTC+8, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:34:53 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:20:42 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:22:56 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Not really - you don't have a universal halting >>>>>>>>>>>> decider here by design. And even if you did, the >>>>>>>>>>>> signature wouldn't do anything to prevent the >>>>>>>>>>>> existence of the programs which have an "invalid >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship" with D. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The point is that this "invalid relationship" is >>>>>>>>>>> DETECTABLE by the black box decider. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think, but I'm not sure, that such relationships >>>>>>>>>> cannot be detected, that it's another one of these >>>>>>>>>> limitation theorems. Ben could probably say more on >>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This "invalid relationship" only exists for programs >>>>>>>>>>> which are deliberately designed to defeat the decider >>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not at all. There will be random programs, not >>>>>>>>>> deliberately designed, which will also have such a >>>>>>>>>> relationship with the purported decider. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> .... which are uninteresting cases because presumably >>>>>>>>>>> we are using a decider to decide legitimate programs >>>>>>>>>>> that have serve some useful purpose beyond the HP >>>>>>>>>>> itself. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you're not talking about the standard halting >>>>>>>>>> problem. That shows the impossibility of a decider >>>>>>>>>> which can decide ANY program. If you limit the scope of >>>>>>>>>> the programs handled, then you might well construct a >>>>>>>>>> practically useful partial decider. Difficult, but >>>>>>>>>> possible. There are probably theorems about the sort of >>>>>>>>>> things that are possible here, but I don't know them. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> None of this has any relevance for the theoremhood of >>>>>>>>>> the halting problem result itself. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Disagree: having a third result for invalid pathological >>>>>>>>> programs whilst novel is still a result, i.e. a decision >>>>>>>>> reached in finite time. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or >>>>>>>> pathological about these programs, and they can run and >>>>>>>> halt or not halt like any other program. It is only in >>>>>>>> their relationship with H where they are special, in that >>>>>>>> H is unable to determine their halting status correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's assuming it's possible for H to single out such >>>>>>>> programs. I don't know if this is possible in the general >>>>>>>> case, but I suspect it's not. Again, Ben or Richard might >>>>>>>> know more about this. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> But all this is moving away from the halting problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Disagree: as the decider is a black box if it can always >>>>>>> detect when it is being invoked, either directly by the >>>>>>> trusted operator or indirectly by P which does not have the >>>>>>> trusted operator's private key in order to digitally sign P >>>>>>> and I that is passed to the decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> P might contain a copy of D's algorithm (with or without the >>>>>> key stuff), and indeed P might contain a copy of the private >>>>>> key. Such programs _exist_, whether or not we could as humans >>>>>> create them. As I say, I don't think it's possible for D to >>>>>> detect an algorithm which does the same as D. >>>>>> >>>>>> But in any case, D is not behaving as a universal halting >>>>>> detector, in that it doesn't return halts/doesn't halt for >>>>>> all input programs. >>>>> I suggest you read up on what constitutes a black box: if the >>>>> black box's algorithm has been copied then it is no longer a >>>>> black box. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>> >>>> Quote carefully, kid. You do not seem to read it. >>>> ...a black box is a system which can be viewed in terms of its >>>> inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics),... >>>> >>>> This is illustrated in Example 2 >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/3yP71I5puns >>> What you quoted does NOT contradict what I said. If you don't have >>> anything of value to add to the discussion then it is best to just >>> keep your fucking mouth shut. >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> Feel losed? Be happy. >> >> A black box program can be copied, reused by invoking...etc. >> >> This is illustrated in Example 2 (do not feel shy) >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/3yP71I5puns > > Except you are ignoring the fact that a digital signature from a > trusted operator is one of the parameters to the black box so it cannot > be "re-used by invoking etc" unless you have the trusted operator's > private key. Again: best to keep your fucking mouth shut if you have > nothing of value to add, pal. For some reason you are making me think of fuzzy bits for copy protection: http://dmweb.free.fr/?q=node/210 (read all...) ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 11:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ybmdndxq7qiVmW79nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36523 |
On 7/17/2021 9:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:20:42 -0000 (UTC) >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:22:56 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>>> Not really - you don't have a universal halting decider here by >>>>>>> design. And even if you did, the signature wouldn't do anything >>>>>>> to prevent the existence of the programs which have an "invalid >>>>>>> relationship" with D. > >>>>>> The point is that this "invalid relationship" is DETECTABLE by >>>>>> the black box decider. > >>>>> I think, but I'm not sure, that such relationships cannot be >>>>> detected, that it's another one of these limitation theorems. Ben >>>>> could probably say more on this. > >>>>>> This "invalid relationship" only exists for programs which are >>>>>> deliberately designed to defeat the decider .... > >>>>> Not at all. There will be random programs, not deliberately >>>>> designed, which will also have such a relationship with the >>>>> purported decider. > >>>>>> .... which are uninteresting cases because presumably we are >>>>>> using a decider to decide legitimate programs that have serve >>>>>> some useful purpose beyond the HP itself. > >>>>> Then you're not talking about the standard halting problem. That >>>>> shows the impossibility of a decider which can decide ANY program. >>>>> If you limit the scope of the programs handled, then you might well >>>>> construct a practically useful partial decider. Difficult, but >>>>> possible. There are probably theorems about the sort of things >>>>> that are possible here, but I don't know them. > >>>>> None of this has any relevance for the theoremhood of the halting >>>>> problem result itself. > >>>> Disagree: having a third result for invalid pathological programs >>>> whilst novel is still a result, i.e. a decision reached in finite >>>> time. > >>> Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or pathological >>> about these programs, and they can run and halt or not halt like any >>> other program. It is only in their relationship with H where they >>> are special, in that H is unable to determine their halting status >>> correctly. > >>> That's assuming it's possible for H to single out such programs. I >>> don't know if this is possible in the general case, but I suspect >>> it's not. Again, Ben or Richard might know more about this. > >>> But all this is moving away from the halting problem. > >> Disagree: as the decider is a black box if it can always detect when it >> is being invoked, either directly by the trusted operator or indirectly >> by P which does not have the trusted operator's private key in order to >> digitally sign P and I that is passed to the decider. > > P might contain a copy of D's algorithm (with or without the key stuff), > and indeed P might contain a copy of the private key. Such programs > _exist_, whether or not we could as humans create them. As I say, I > don't think it's possible for D to detect an algorithm which does the > same as D. > > But in any case, D is not behaving as a universal halting detector, in > that it doesn't return halts/doesn't halt for all input programs. > >> /Flibble > Flibble is at least years behind me on this stuff. I had these same sort of ideas as far back as 2004. Correctly deciding the halt status of these "impossible" inputs is far superior to merely recognizing and rejecting them. Here is my most recent attempt at recognizing and rejecting the pathological inputs: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323384939_Halting_Problem_Proof_from_Finite_Strings_to_Final_States -- 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 | 2021-07-17 17:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210717174503.00000fa4@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #36548 |
On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 11:23:37 -0500 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > Flibble is at least years behind me on this stuff. > I had these same sort of ideas as far back as 2004. > > Correctly deciding the halt status of these "impossible" inputs is > far superior to merely recognizing and rejecting them. Years behind? Perhaps, however I don't plan on spending years of my life on this problem like you have: our time on this planet is finite and precious (there is no afterlife) so given that I am happy for my black box decider to remain an abstract hypothetical concept. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-17 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obKdnWCIgLw-k279nZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36551 |
On 7/17/2021 11:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 11:23:37 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> Flibble is at least years behind me on this stuff. >> I had these same sort of ideas as far back as 2004. >> >> Correctly deciding the halt status of these "impossible" inputs is >> far superior to merely recognizing and rejecting them. > > Years behind? Perhaps, however I don't plan on spending years of my > life on this problem like you have: our time on this planet is finite > and precious (there is no afterlife) so given that I am happy for my > black box decider to remain an abstract hypothetical concept. > > /Flibble > > I have spent many thousands of hours on this since 2004. I do this because the solution is the key basis for strong AI. Once halting is known to be decidable and computation has no limits AI research will increase 100-fold. -- 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 | 2021-07-17 11:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0sWdnfVgRaUXn279nZ2dnUU7-dHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36520 |
On 7/17/2021 9:20 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC) >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:22:56 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>>>> Not really - you don't have a universal halting decider here by >>>>> design. And even if you did, the signature wouldn't do anything to >>>>> prevent the existence of the programs which have an "invalid >>>>> relationship" with D. > >>>> The point is that this "invalid relationship" is DETECTABLE by the >>>> black box decider. > >>> I think, but I'm not sure, that such relationships cannot be detected, >>> that it's another one of these limitation theorems. Ben could >>> probably say more on this. > >>>> This "invalid relationship" only exists for programs which are >>>> deliberately designed to defeat the decider .... > >>> Not at all. There will be random programs, not deliberately designed, >>> which will also have such a relationship with the purported decider. > >>>> .... which are uninteresting cases because presumably we are using a >>>> decider to decide legitimate programs that have serve some useful >>>> purpose beyond the HP itself. > >>> Then you're not talking about the standard halting problem. That >>> shows the impossibility of a decider which can decide ANY program. >>> If you limit the scope of the programs handled, then you might well >>> construct a practically useful partial decider. Difficult, but >>> possible. There are probably theorems about the sort of things that >>> are possible here, but I don't know them. > >>> None of this has any relevance for the theoremhood of the halting >>> problem result itself. > >> Disagree: having a third result for invalid pathological programs >> whilst novel is still a result, i.e. a decision reached in finite time. > > Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or pathological about > these programs, You must be very very brainwashed to believe that an input the was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever halt status value is returned from its corresponding TM is not pathological. Flibble was the first one smart enough to understand this besides me. That makes him enormously smarter than you at least on this one key point. > and they can run and halt or not halt like any other > program. It is only in their relationship with H where they are special, > in that H is unable to determine their halting status correctly. > > That's assuming it's possible for H to single out such programs. I don't > know if this is possible in the general case, but I suspect it's not. > Again, Ben or Richard might know more about this. > > But all this is moving away from the halting problem. > >> /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 | 2021-07-17 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <scvd5j$cnk$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36547 |
[ Malicious cross posting removed ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/17/2021 9:20 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC) >>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:22:56 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>> Not really - you don't have a universal halting decider here by >>>>>> design. And even if you did, the signature wouldn't do anything to >>>>>> prevent the existence of the programs which have an "invalid >>>>>> relationship" with D. >>>>> The point is that this "invalid relationship" is DETECTABLE by the >>>>> black box decider. >>>> I think, but I'm not sure, that such relationships cannot be detected, >>>> that it's another one of these limitation theorems. Ben could >>>> probably say more on this. >>>>> This "invalid relationship" only exists for programs which are >>>>> deliberately designed to defeat the decider .... >>>> Not at all. There will be random programs, not deliberately designed, >>>> which will also have such a relationship with the purported decider. >>>>> .... which are uninteresting cases because presumably we are using a >>>>> decider to decide legitimate programs that have serve some useful >>>>> purpose beyond the HP itself. >>>> Then you're not talking about the standard halting problem. That >>>> shows the impossibility of a decider which can decide ANY program. >>>> If you limit the scope of the programs handled, then you might well >>>> construct a practically useful partial decider. Difficult, but >>>> possible. There are probably theorems about the sort of things that >>>> are possible here, but I don't know them. >>>> None of this has any relevance for the theoremhood of the halting >>>> problem result itself. >>> Disagree: having a third result for invalid pathological programs >>> whilst novel is still a result, i.e. a decision reached in finite time. >> Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or pathological about >> these programs, > You must be very very brainwashed to believe that an input the was > intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever halt status value > is returned from its corresponding TM is not pathological. Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How about you actually read what I wrote before answering at half-cock? My point was that these programs, though they may have a special relationship with a purported halt decider, are otherwise perfectly ordinary programs which run, and either halt or fail to halt. The purported halt decider will give the wrong answer for such programs. > Flibble was the first one smart enough to understand this besides me. > That makes him enormously smarter than you at least on this one key point. You are not smart. I think Mr. Flibble now sees that these programs are just programs, but we'd have to wait for him to say this himself. >> and they can run and halt or not halt like any other program. It is >> only in their relationship with H where they are special, in that H is >> unable to determine their halting status correctly. >> That's assuming it's possible for H to single out such programs. I don't >> know if this is possible in the general case, but I suspect it's not. >> Again, Ben or Richard might know more about this. >> But all this is moving away from the halting problem. >>> /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 | 2021-07-17 15:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0aadnTsaJazGpm79nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36564 |
On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Malicious cross posting removed ] > > In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On 7/17/2021 9:20 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:59:02 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:22:56 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>>>>>> Not really - you don't have a universal halting decider here by >>>>>>> design. And even if you did, the signature wouldn't do anything to >>>>>>> prevent the existence of the programs which have an "invalid >>>>>>> relationship" with D. > >>>>>> The point is that this "invalid relationship" is DETECTABLE by the >>>>>> black box decider. > >>>>> I think, but I'm not sure, that such relationships cannot be detected, >>>>> that it's another one of these limitation theorems. Ben could >>>>> probably say more on this. > >>>>>> This "invalid relationship" only exists for programs which are >>>>>> deliberately designed to defeat the decider .... > >>>>> Not at all. There will be random programs, not deliberately designed, >>>>> which will also have such a relationship with the purported decider. > >>>>>> .... which are uninteresting cases because presumably we are using a >>>>>> decider to decide legitimate programs that have serve some useful >>>>>> purpose beyond the HP itself. > >>>>> Then you're not talking about the standard halting problem. That >>>>> shows the impossibility of a decider which can decide ANY program. >>>>> If you limit the scope of the programs handled, then you might well >>>>> construct a practically useful partial decider. Difficult, but >>>>> possible. There are probably theorems about the sort of things that >>>>> are possible here, but I don't know them. > >>>>> None of this has any relevance for the theoremhood of the halting >>>>> problem result itself. > >>>> Disagree: having a third result for invalid pathological programs >>>> whilst novel is still a result, i.e. a decision reached in finite time. > >>> Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or pathological about >>> these programs, > >> You must be very very brainwashed to believe that an input the was >> intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever halt status value >> is returned from its corresponding TM is not pathological. > > Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How about you > actually read what I wrote before answering at half-cock? My point was > that these programs, though they may have a special relationship with a > purported halt decider, are otherwise perfectly ordinary programs which > run, and either halt or fail to halt. The purported halt decider will > give the wrong answer for such programs. > You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever acknowledged any *special relationship* The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable to provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special relationship* harmful AKA pathological. >> Flibble was the first one smart enough to understand this besides me. >> That makes him enormously smarter than you at least on this one key point. > > You are not smart. I think Mr. Flibble now sees that these programs are > just programs, but we'd have to wait for him to say this himself. > Flibble is merely at the point that I was in 2004. This is way ahead of everyone else that simply accepts the pathological self-reference error as perfectly legitimate and not an error. It is really cool that we have the exact same computer science academic background. I had an honors level 3.515 GPA when I graduated. >>> and they can run and halt or not halt like any other program. It is >>> only in their relationship with H where they are special, in that H is >>> unable to determine their halting status correctly. > >>> That's assuming it's possible for H to single out such programs. I don't >>> know if this is possible in the general case, but I suspect it's not. >>> Again, Ben or Richard might know more about this. > >>> But all this is moving away from the halting problem. > >>>> /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 20:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <scvfrn$cnk$4@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36566 |
[ Malicious cross posting snipped. ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] >> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 7/17/2021 9:20 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: [ .... ] >>>> Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or pathological >>>> about these programs, >>> You must be very very brainwashed to believe that an input the was >>> intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever halt status >>> value is returned from its corresponding TM is not pathological. >> Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How about >> you actually read what I wrote before answering at half-cock? My >> point was that these programs, though they may have a special >> relationship with a purported halt decider, are otherwise perfectly >> ordinary programs which run, and either halt or fail to halt. The >> purported halt decider will give the wrong answer for such programs. > You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever > acknowledged any *special relationship* > The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable to > provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special relationship* > harmful AKA pathological. What do you mean, harmful? There's nothing here which will kill polar bears, increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or cause floods or droughts. There's nothing pathalogical here, either - these special situations where a purpurted decider gives the wrong answer are are part of all such deciders. They are an essential property of such purported deciders and are a fascinating thing to explore and form theorems around. >>> Flibble was the first one smart enough to understand this besides me. >>> That makes him enormously smarter than you at least on this one key >>> point. >> You are not smart. I think Mr. Flibble now sees that these programs >> are just programs, but we'd have to wait for him to say this himself. > Flibble is merely at the point that I was in 2004. This is way ahead of > everyone else that simply accepts the pathological self-reference error > as perfectly legitimate and not an error. You are in a tiny minority (of 1?) who believes essential properties of mathematical logic are intrinsically erroneous. It seems you are not prepared to live in the world we have, you want one essentially different (that cannot possibly exist). > It is really cool that we have the exact same computer science academic > background. I had an honors level 3.515 GPA when I graduated. [ .... ] > -- > 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 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpOdnW3SfuuMzW79nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36567 |
On 7/17/2021 3:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Malicious cross posting snipped. ] > > In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] > >>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/17/2021 9:20 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>> Let me stress again that there is nothing invalid or pathological >>>>> about these programs, > >>>> You must be very very brainwashed to believe that an input the was >>>> intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever halt status >>>> value is returned from its corresponding TM is not pathological. > >>> Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How about >>> you actually read what I wrote before answering at half-cock? My >>> point was that these programs, though they may have a special >>> relationship with a purported halt decider, are otherwise perfectly >>> ordinary programs which run, and either halt or fail to halt. The >>> purported halt decider will give the wrong answer for such programs. > > >> You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever >> acknowledged any *special relationship* > >> The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable to >> provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special relationship* >> harmful AKA pathological. > > What do you mean, harmful? There's nothing here which will kill polar > bears, increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or cause > floods or droughts. There's nothing pathalogical here, either - these The fact that the *special relationship* (without my solution) has the harmful effect of preventing useful software tools from being created. This can harmful effect can cause human death in that the software tool could have detected an error in the software control of a life support system. > special situations where a purpurted decider gives the wrong answer are > are part of all such deciders. They are an essential property of such > purported deciders and are a fascinating thing to explore and form > theorems around. > Not at all and you know it. This problem is all the cause of the *special relationship*. >>>> Flibble was the first one smart enough to understand this besides me. >>>> That makes him enormously smarter than you at least on this one key >>>> point. > >>> You are not smart. I think Mr. Flibble now sees that these programs >>> are just programs, but we'd have to wait for him to say this himself. > >> Flibble is merely at the point that I was in 2004. This is way ahead of >> everyone else that simply accepts the pathological self-reference error >> as perfectly legitimate and not an error. > > You are in a tiny minority (of 1?) who believes essential properties of > mathematical logic are intrinsically erroneous. Self-contradiction <is> an error in all logic systems. Learned-by-rote people never notice this because their Learned-by-rote never tells them. Only those willing to challenge the philosophical foundation of the notion of truth itself ever begin to have a clue. Tarski anchored his undefinability (of truth) theorem in the liar paradox. It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated with x asserts that x is not a true sentence. http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf > It seems you are not > prepared to live in the world we have, you want one essentially > different (that cannot possibly exist). > >> It is really cool that we have the exact same computer science academic >> background. I had an honors level 3.515 GPA when I graduated. > > [ .... ] > >> -- >> 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 | 2021-07-18 10:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sd11er$pc1$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36570 |
[ Malicious cross posting removed ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/17/2021 3:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Malicious cross posting snipped. ] >> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] [ .... ] >>>> Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How >>>> about you actually read what I wrote before answering at half-cock? >>>> My point was that these programs, though they may have a special >>>> relationship with a purported halt decider, are otherwise perfectly >>>> ordinary programs which run, and either halt or fail to halt. The >>>> purported halt decider will give the wrong answer for such programs. >>> You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever >>> acknowledged any *special relationship* >>> The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable >>> to provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special >>> relationship* harmful AKA pathological. >> What do you mean, harmful? There's nothing here which will kill polar >> bears, increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or cause >> floods or droughts. There's nothing pathalogical here, either - these > The fact that the *special relationship* (without my solution) .... With or without your "solution", which isn't one. > .... has the harmful effect of preventing useful software tools from > being created. > This can harmful effect can cause human death in that the software tool > could have detected an error in the software control of a life support > system. You've got a strange view of things, indeed. Think of this theorem as something like division by zero. Nobody goes around moaning about how the inability to divide by zero restricts the software he can write. >> special situations where a purpurted decider gives the wrong answer are >> are part of all such deciders. They are an essential property of such >> purported deciders and are a fascinating thing to explore and form >> theorems around. > Not at all and you know it. Don't be impertinent. What I wrote is true, and I meant it. > This problem is all the cause of the *special relationship*. You would like to believe in magic. You don't complain about the existence of gravity causing people to fall and hurt themselves. Or maybe you do, one just can't tell with some people. [ .... ] >>> Flibble is merely at the point that I was in 2004. This is way ahead >>> of everyone else that simply accepts the pathological self-reference >>> error as perfectly legitimate and not an error. >> You are in a tiny minority (of 1?) who believes essential properties of >> mathematical logic are intrinsically erroneous. > Self-contradiction <is> an error in all logic systems. Learned-by-rote > people never notice this because their Learned-by-rote never tells them. Where "learned-by-rote people" means people more learned that Peter Olcott. It's a crude and nasty insult, and you would do better to stop using it. I think you'll find (or have found) that mathematical logic is such a difficult topic, that learning without understanding is not possible. In the topic at hand there is no self-contradiction. It's just that you personally have unreasonable expectations about mathematical systems. There is no universal halt decider, just as there's no division by zero. That's all there is to it. > Only those willing to challenge the philosophical foundation of the > notion of truth itself ever begin to have a clue. That's an extravagant claim, without basis. What we have is somebody without a clue challenging the mathematical basis of truth. That is bound to end in disappointment. [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott > "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre > minds." Einstein -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-18 07:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <57WII.17287$tL2.11550@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #36592 |
On 7/18/21 4:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Malicious cross posting removed ] > > In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >> Only those willing to challenge the philosophical foundation of the >> notion of truth itself ever begin to have a clue. > > That's an extravagant claim, without basis. What we have is somebody > without a clue challenging the mathematical basis of truth. That is > bound to end in disappointment. > > I think this comment is the core of the issue. PO doesn't really care about the Halting Problem, and thus hasn't really studied what it is. What he cares about is a Philosophical idea that says that we can define Truth to be only what is provable. This IS a valid basis for a logical system, the one limitation is such a system is limited in what it can handle. PO doesn't like the fact that such a system is limited, but thinks that this sort of system can handle all problems, but runs into the problem that things like the halting problem prove that this sort of system can't work for fields like Mathematics. Because simple proofs like the Halting Problem show that the concept of All Truth is Provable can't be univerally True, he thinks there MUST be something wrong with those theories, and thus he goes to great contortions to try to discredit those theories. He also seems to resist looking at history, thinking that this might somehow pollute his mind and get him stuck in the same 'wrong thinking' that has shown is idea to be false, so he is repeating many of the previous errors that have been made in the last century looking at this problem. Ultimately, the problem is that his logic system has gone inconsistent due to some of the new 'axioms' he is adding, but he has blinded himself to that result, as that would just show that he is wrong, and in his mind he can't be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 08:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <C_mdneJixfyHGGj9nZ2dnUU7-c3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36592 |
On 7/18/2021 5:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Malicious cross posting removed ] > > In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On 7/17/2021 3:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Malicious cross posting snipped. ] > >>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] > > [ .... ] > >>>>> Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How >>>>> about you actually read what I wrote before answering at half-cock? >>>>> My point was that these programs, though they may have a special >>>>> relationship with a purported halt decider, are otherwise perfectly >>>>> ordinary programs which run, and either halt or fail to halt. The >>>>> purported halt decider will give the wrong answer for such programs. > >>>> You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever >>>> acknowledged any *special relationship* > >>>> The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable >>>> to provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special >>>> relationship* harmful AKA pathological. > >>> What do you mean, harmful? There's nothing here which will kill polar >>> bears, increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or cause >>> floods or droughts. There's nothing pathalogical here, either - these > >> The fact that the *special relationship* (without my solution) .... > > With or without your "solution", which isn't one. Ignoring that I proved that H(P,P)==0 is correct is not a rebuttal. > >> .... has the harmful effect of preventing useful software tools from >> being created. > >> This can harmful effect can cause human death in that the software tool >> could have detected an error in the software control of a life support >> system. > > You've got a strange view of things, indeed. Think of this theorem as > something like division by zero. Nobody goes around moaning about how > the inability to divide by zero restricts the software he can write. > It is not that halting is undecidable is that pathological cases that cheat are allowed. My solution removes the pathology from these otherwise pathological cases. When H acts as a pure simulator until after it makes its halt status decision P can never do the opposite of whatever H decides. >>> special situations where a purpurted decider gives the wrong answer are >>> are part of all such deciders. They are an essential property of such >>> purported deciders and are a fascinating thing to explore and form >>> theorems around. > >> Not at all and you know it. > > Don't be impertinent. What I wrote is true, and I meant it. > >> This problem is all the cause of the *special relationship*. > > You would like to believe in magic. You don't complain about the > existence of gravity causing people to fall and hurt themselves. Or > maybe you do, one just can't tell with some people. > 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. > [ .... ] > >>>> Flibble is merely at the point that I was in 2004. This is way ahead >>>> of everyone else that simply accepts the pathological self-reference >>>> error as perfectly legitimate and not an error. > >>> You are in a tiny minority (of 1?) who believes essential properties of >>> mathematical logic are intrinsically erroneous. > >> Self-contradiction <is> an error in all logic systems. Learned-by-rote >> people never notice this because their Learned-by-rote never tells them. > > Where "learned-by-rote people" means people more learned that Peter > Olcott. It's a crude and nasty insult, and you would do better to stop > using it. It is the most accurate depiction of the reason for the lack of mutual understanding. Knowing all the details of what math says is no good if math itself gets some things wrong. > I think you'll find (or have found) that mathematical logic is > such a difficult topic, that learning without understanding is not > possible. > > In the topic at hand there is no self-contradiction. 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. > It's just that you > personally have unreasonable expectations about mathematical systems. > There is no universal halt decider, just as there's no division by zero. > That's all there is to it. > >> Only those willing to challenge the philosophical foundation of the >> notion of truth itself ever begin to have a clue. > > That's an extravagant claim, without basis. What we have is somebody > without a clue challenging the mathematical basis of truth. That is > bound to end in disappointment. > That you simply cut rather than responded to my basis and then claimed that I provided no basis is flat out dishonest. Tarski's work is considered to provide the basic mathematical foundation of the notion of truth. All of his work besides his undefinability theorem is great.Tarski anchored his undefinability (of truth) theorem in the liar paradox. The next paragraph he specifies the basis of his undefinability theorem. It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated with x asserts that x is not a true sentence. http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf > [ .... ] > >> -- >> 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 | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6OgJI.18160$tL2.6263@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #36630 |
On 7/19/21 6:58 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/18/2021 5:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 7/17/2021 3:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Malicious cross posting snipped. ] >> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>>> Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How >>>>>> about you actually read what I wrote before answering at half-cock? >>>>>> My point was that these programs, though they may have a special >>>>>> relationship with a purported halt decider, are otherwise perfectly >>>>>> ordinary programs which run, and either halt or fail to halt. The >>>>>> purported halt decider will give the wrong answer for such programs. >> >>>>> You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever >>>>> acknowledged any *special relationship* >> >>>>> The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable >>>>> to provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special >>>>> relationship* harmful AKA pathological. >> >>>> What do you mean, harmful? There's nothing here which will kill polar >>>> bears, increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or cause >>>> floods or droughts. There's nothing pathalogical here, either - these >> >>> The fact that the *special relationship* (without my solution) .... >> >> With or without your "solution", which isn't one. > > Ignoring that I proved that H(P,P)==0 is correct is not a rebuttal. Ignoring that the defintion of Halting says that P(P) is halting and thus H(P,P) == 0 is wrong isn't a proof. You 'proof' was unsound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sd4fp7$2dtk$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36630 |
[ Malicious cross posting removed ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/18/2021 5:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] >> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 7/17/2021 3:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Malicious cross posting snipped. ] >>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] >> [ .... ] >>>>>> Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How >>>>>> about you actually read what I wrote before answering at >>>>>> half-cock? My point was that these programs, though they may have >>>>>> a special relationship with a purported halt decider, are >>>>>> otherwise perfectly ordinary programs which run, and either halt >>>>>> or fail to halt. The purported halt decider will give the wrong >>>>>> answer for such programs. >>>>> You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever >>>>> acknowledged any *special relationship* >>>>> The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable >>>>> to provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special >>>>> relationship* harmful AKA pathological. >>>> What do you mean, harmful? There's nothing here which will kill >>>> polar bears, increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere >>>> or cause floods or droughts. There's nothing pathalogical here, >>>> either - these >>> The fact that the *special relationship* (without my solution) .... >> With or without your "solution", which isn't one. > Ignoring that I proved that H(P,P)==0 is correct is not a rebuttal. No, it's an insistence on the validity of a proven theorem. *You*'re the one attempting rebuttal. Like I've said before, the proofs of the halting problem theorem are independent of the internal workings of purported halt deciders, so those internal workings just aren't interesting. H doesn't exist. >>> .... has the harmful effect of preventing useful software tools from >>> being created. >>> This can harmful effect can cause human death in that the software >>> tool could have detected an error in the software control of a life >>> support system. >> You've got a strange view of things, indeed. Think of this theorem as >> something like division by zero. Nobody goes around moaning about how >> the inability to divide by zero restricts the software he can write. > It is not that halting is undecidable is that pathological cases that > cheat are allowed. You are in an emotional state. "Pathalogical" and "cheat" are not neutral terms to describe something which has nothing to do with a disease and has nothing to do with any sense of "fair play". > My solution removes the pathology from these otherwise pathological > cases. When H acts as a pure simulator until after it makes its halt > status decision P can never do the opposite of whatever H decides. It can, if H and H^ (?P) are defined as described by Linz, for example. As you keep ignoring, the internal details of purported Hs have no influence on the proof and are wholly unimportant. >>>> special situations where a purpurted decider gives the wrong answer >>>> are are part of all such deciders. They are an essential property >>>> of such purported deciders and are a fascinating thing to explore >>>> and form theorems around. >>> Not at all and you know it. >> Don't be impertinent. What I wrote is true, and I meant it. >>> This problem is all the cause of the *special relationship*. >> You would like to believe in magic. You don't complain about the >> existence of gravity causing people to fall and hurt themselves. Or >> maybe you do, one just can't tell with some people. > 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. That's a silly definition; for a start, there's no way of applying it, since it's impossible to determine if a turing machine "does the opposite of" something. Besides there are all the other TMs which the purported decider would get wrong which don't "do the opposite". (No, I don't know if there are any, but you don't know there aren't.) [ .... ] >>>> You are in a tiny minority (of 1?) who believes essential properties >>>> of mathematical logic are intrinsically erroneous. >>> Self-contradiction <is> an error in all logic systems. >>> Learned-by-rote people never notice this because their >>> Learned-by-rote never tells them. >> Where "learned-by-rote people" means people more learned that Peter >> Olcott. It's a crude and nasty insult, and you would do better to >> stop using it. > It is the most accurate depiction of the reason for the lack of mutual > understanding. Knowing all the details of what math says is no good if > math itself gets some things wrong. I despise you. You are ignorant of mathematics, and thus feel entitled to treat it with disdain. Maths doesn't "get some things wrong", at least not in the sense you mean. The lack of mutual understanding is purely a result of ignorance on the part of the crank, and the lack of respect for expertise he doesn't possess. >> I think you'll find (or have found) that mathematical logic is >> such a difficult topic, that learning without understanding is not >> possible. >> In the topic at hand there is no self-contradiction. > 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. Whatever. At any rate, you appear to have accepted the halting problem theorem, in that you accept the existence of what you call "pathological" input, with which purported deciders return the wrong answer. I think you just mean inputs that the purported decider gets wrong. >> It's just that you personally have unreasonable expectations about >> mathematical systems. There is no universal halt decider, just as >> there's no division by zero. That's all there is to it. >>> Only those willing to challenge the philosophical foundation of the >>> notion of truth itself ever begin to have a clue. >> That's an extravagant claim, without basis. What we have is somebody >> without a clue challenging the mathematical basis of truth. That is >> bound to end in disappointment. > That you simply cut rather than responded to my basis and then claimed > that I provided no basis is flat out dishonest. Sorry, misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about yourself, there, not Tarski. > Tarski's work is considered to provide the basic mathematical foundation > of the notion of truth. All of his work besides his undefinability > theorem is great.Tarski anchored his undefinability (of truth) theorem > in the liar paradox. The next paragraph he specifies the basis of his > undefinability theorem. > It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar in > the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence x such > that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated with x > asserts that x is not a true sentence. [ .... ] > -- > 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 | 2021-07-20 08:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <D5ydnW7EdN5eU2v9nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36655 |
On 7/19/2021 1:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/18/2021 5:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/17/2021 3:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Malicious cross posting snipped. ]
>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/17/2021 3:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>>>>>>> Brainwashed to have a correct overview which Olcott lacks? How
>>>>>>> about you actually read what I wrote before answering at
>>>>>>> half-cock? My point was that these programs, though they may have
>>>>>>> a special relationship with a purported halt decider, are
>>>>>>> otherwise perfectly ordinary programs which run, and either halt
>>>>>>> or fail to halt. The purported halt decider will give the wrong
>>>>>>> answer for such programs.
>
>>>>>> You have proven much more honest than Ben on this he never ever
>>>>>> acknowledged any *special relationship*
>
>>>>>> The key is that *special relationship* is what has made them unable
>>>>>> to provide the correct halt status, thus making the *special
>>>>>> relationship* harmful AKA pathological.
>
>>>>> What do you mean, harmful? There's nothing here which will kill
>>>>> polar bears, increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
>>>>> or cause floods or droughts. There's nothing pathalogical here,
>>>>> either - these
>
>>>> The fact that the *special relationship* (without my solution) ....
>
>>> With or without your "solution", which isn't one.
>
>> Ignoring that I proved that H(P,P)==0 is correct is not a rebuttal.
>
> No, it's an insistence on the validity of a proven theorem. *You*'re the
> one attempting rebuttal. Like I've said before, the proofs of the
> halting problem theorem are independent of the internal workings of
> purported halt deciders, so those internal workings just aren't
> interesting. H doesn't exist.
>
I show all the steps of exactly how H(P,P)==0 is derived. That you
simply ignore these steps and claim that I am incorrect is simply
dishonest.
Simulating partial halt decider H correctly decides that P(P) never
halts (V0)
// Strachey(1965) "An impossible program"
// CPL translated to C
// https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
_P()
[00000c36](01) 55 push ebp
[00000c37](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] // 2nd Param
[00000c3c](01) 50 push eax
[00000c3d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] // 1st Param
[00000c40](01) 51 push ecx
[00000c41](05) e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H
[00000c46](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c49](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000c4b](02) 7402 jz 00000c4f
[00000c4d](02) ebfe jmp 00000c4d
[00000c4f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000c50](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000c50]
_main()
[00000c56](01) 55 push ebp
[00000c57](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c59](05) 68360c0000 push 00000c36
[00000c5e](05) 68360c0000 push 00000c36
[00000c63](05) e8fefcffff call 00000966
[00000c68](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c6b](01) 50 push eax
[00000c6c](05) 6857030000 push 00000357
[00000c71](05) e810f7ffff call 00000386
[00000c76](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c79](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00000c7b](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000c7c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0039) [00000c7c]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[00000c56][0010172a][00000000] 55 push ebp
[00000c57][0010172a][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c59][00101726][00000c36] 68360c0000 push 00000c36
[00000c5e][00101722][00000c36] 68360c0000 push 00000c36
[00000c63][0010171e][00000c68] e8fefcffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36
[00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50 push eax
[00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51 push ecx
[00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
[00000c36][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][0025c1ee][00000c36] 50 push eax
[00000c3d][0025c1ee][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][0025c1ea][00000c36] 51 push ecx
[00000c41][0025c1e6][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
[00000c68][0010172a][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c6b][00101726][00000000] 50 push eax
[00000c6c][00101722][00000357] 6857030000 push 00000357
[00000c71][00101722][00000357] e810f7ffff call 00000386
Input_Halts = 0
[00000c76][0010172a][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c79][0010172a][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00000c7b][0010172e][00100000] 5d pop ebp
[00000c7c][00101732][00000068] c3 ret
Number_of_User_Instructions(27)
Number of Instructions Executed(23721)
>>>> .... has the harmful effect of preventing useful software tools from
>>>> being created.
>
>>>> This can harmful effect can cause human death in that the software
>>>> tool could have detected an error in the software control of a life
>>>> support system.
>
>>> You've got a strange view of things, indeed. Think of this theorem as
>>> something like division by zero. Nobody goes around moaning about how
>>> the inability to divide by zero restricts the software he can write.
>
>> It is not that halting is undecidable is that pathological cases that
>> cheat are allowed.
>
> You are in an emotional state. "Pathalogical" and "cheat" are not
> neutral terms to describe something which has nothing to do with a
> disease and has nothing to do with any sense of "fair play".
>
>> My solution removes the pathology from these otherwise pathological
>> cases. When H acts as a pure simulator until after it makes its halt
>> status decision P can never do the opposite of whatever H decides.
>
> It can, if H and H^ (?P) are defined as described by Linz, for example.
> As you keep ignoring, the internal details of purported Hs have no
> influence on the proof and are wholly unimportant.
>
>>>>> special situations where a purpurted decider gives the wrong answer
>>>>> are are part of all such deciders. They are an essential property
>>>>> of such purported deciders and are a fascinating thing to explore
>>>>> and form theorems around.
>
>>>> Not at all and you know it.
>
>>> Don't be impertinent. What I wrote is true, and I meant it.
>
>>>> This problem is all the cause of the *special relationship*.
>
>>> You would like to believe in magic. You don't complain about the
>>> existence of gravity causing people to fall and hurt themselves. Or
>>> maybe you do, one just can't tell with some people.
>
>> 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.
>
> That's a silly definition; for a start, there's no way of applying it,
> since it's impossible to determine if a turing machine "does the opposite
> of" something. Besides there are all the other TMs which the purported
> decider would get wrong which don't "do the opposite". (No, I don't know
> if there are any, but you don't know there aren't.)
>
> [ .... ]
>
>>>>> You are in a tiny minority (of 1?) who believes essential properties
>>>>> of mathematical logic are intrinsically erroneous.
>
>>>> Self-contradiction <is> an error in all logic systems.
>>>> Learned-by-rote people never notice this because their
>>>> Learned-by-rote never tells them.
>
>>> Where "learned-by-rote people" means people more learned that Peter
>>> Olcott. It's a crude and nasty insult, and you would do better to
>>> stop using it.
>
>> It is the most accurate depiction of the reason for the lack of mutual
>> understanding. Knowing all the details of what math says is no good if
>> math itself gets some things wrong.
>
> I despise you. You are ignorant of mathematics, and thus feel entitled
> to treat it with disdain. Maths doesn't "get some things wrong", at
> least not in the sense you mean. The lack of mutual understanding is
> purely a result of ignorance on the part of the crank, and the lack of
> respect for expertise he doesn't possess.
>
>>> I think you'll find (or have found) that mathematical logic is
>>> such a difficult topic, that learning without understanding is not
>>> possible.
>
>>> In the topic at hand there is no self-contradiction.
>
>> 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.
>
> Whatever. At any rate, you appear to have accepted the halting problem
> theorem, in that you accept the existence of what you call "pathological"
> input, with which purported deciders return the wrong answer. I think
> you just mean inputs that the purported decider gets wrong.
>
>>> It's just that you personally have unreasonable expectations about
>>> mathematical systems. There is no universal halt decider, just as
>>> there's no division by zero. That's all there is to it.
>
>>>> Only those willing to challenge the philosophical foundation of the
>>>> notion of truth itself ever begin to have a clue.
>
>>> That's an extravagant claim, without basis. What we have is somebody
>>> without a clue challenging the mathematical basis of truth. That is
>>> bound to end in disappointment.
>
>> That you simply cut rather than responded to my basis and then claimed
>> that I provided no basis is flat out dishonest.
>
> Sorry, misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about yourself,
> there, not Tarski.
>
>> Tarski's work is considered to provide the basic mathematical foundation
>> of the notion of truth. All of his work besides his undefinability
>> theorem is great.Tarski anchored his undefinability (of truth) theorem
>> in the liar paradox. The next paragraph he specifies the basis of his
>> undefinability theorem.
>
>> It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar in
>> the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence x such
>> that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated with x
>> asserts that x is not a true sentence.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> --
>> 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 | 2021-07-20 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sd71h3$2u50$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36695 |
[ Malicious cross posting removed ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/19/2021 1:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] >> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: [ .... ] >>> Ignoring that I proved that H(P,P)==0 is correct is not a rebuttal. >> No, it's an insistence on the validity of a proven theorem. *You*'re the >> one attempting rebuttal. Like I've said before, the proofs of the >> halting problem theorem are independent of the internal workings of >> purported halt deciders, so those internal workings just aren't >> interesting. H doesn't exist. > I show all the steps of exactly how H(P,P)==0 is derived. You don't. You haven't yet published the source code of an alleged H. > That you simply ignore these steps and claim that I am incorrect is > simply dishonest. No, it's being dishonest to indulge you with the suggestion that what you are doing has any possible validity. It is unimportant and uninteresting why H(P,P)==0, if it actually is. It has no bearing on the halting theorem proofs, which work regardless of the nature of any purported halting decider. Seeing as how you can't disprove these proofs honestly, you resort to falsehoods and obfuscation. Even so, the other posters on this newsgroup have seen through it and exposed it. When is all this nonsense going to end? [ .... ] > -- > 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 | 2021-07-20 13:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) |
| Message-ID | <YP6dnSzn96HbiGr9nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36714 |
On 7/20/2021 12:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/19/2021 1:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>>>> Ignoring that I proved that H(P,P)==0 is correct is not a rebuttal.
>
>>> No, it's an insistence on the validity of a proven theorem. *You*'re the
>>> one attempting rebuttal. Like I've said before, the proofs of the
>>> halting problem theorem are independent of the internal workings of
>>> purported halt deciders, so those internal workings just aren't
>>> interesting. H doesn't exist.
>
>> I show all the steps of exactly how H(P,P)==0 is derived.
>
> You don't. You haven't yet published the source code of an alleged H.
>
>> That you simply ignore these steps and claim that I am incorrect is
>> simply dishonest.
>
> No, it's being dishonest to indulge you with the suggestion that what you
> are doing has any possible validity. It is unimportant and uninteresting
> why H(P,P)==0, if it actually is. It has no bearing on the halting
> theorem proofs, which work regardless of the nature of any purported
> halting decider. Seeing as how you can't disprove these proofs honestly,
> you resort to falsehoods and obfuscation. Even so, the other posters on
> this newsgroup have seen through it and exposed it. When is all this
> nonsense going to end?
>
// Strachey(1965) "An impossible program"
// CPL translated to C
// https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
All of the proofs conclusively prove that H cannot possibly return a
Boolean value corresponding to the actual halt status of P to P in the
above computation.
None of the proofs bother to examine whether or not returning a correct
halt status from H to P in the above computation is required, they
simply assume that it is required. *That is their error*
The paper shows the actual execution trace of the simulation of P(P) by
H cannot possibly ever stop running unless its simulation is aborted.
Because this is the definition of a computation that never halts
H(P,P)==0 is impossibly incorrect.
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
>
--
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 | 2021-07-20 18:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) |
| Message-ID | <sd7644$1c7r$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #36716 |
[ Malicious cross posting removed ] In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 7/20/2021 12:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Malicious cross posting removed ] >> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: [ .... ] >>> I show all the steps of exactly how H(P,P)==0 is derived. >> You don't. You haven't yet published the source code of an alleged H. >>> That you simply ignore these steps and claim that I am incorrect is >>> simply dishonest. >> No, it's being dishonest to indulge you with the suggestion that what >> you are doing has any possible validity. It is unimportant and >> uninteresting why H(P,P)==0, if it actually is. It has no bearing on >> the halting theorem proofs, which work regardless of the nature of any >> purported halting decider. Seeing as how you can't disprove these >> proofs honestly, you resort to falsehoods and obfuscation. Even so, >> the other posters on this newsgroup have seen through it and exposed >> it. When is all this nonsense going to end? [ .... ] > All of the proofs conclusively prove that H cannot possibly return a > Boolean value corresponding to the actual halt status of P to P in the > above computation. Wow! > None of the proofs bother to examine whether or not returning a correct > halt status from H to P in the above computation is required, they > simply assume that it is required. *That is their error* For crying out loud! It is an error to require what is required by the statement of the problem? The central element of the halting problem is a *UNIVERSAL* halting decider. And you're saying insisting upon this *universality* is an error? Don't be stupid. There is no error in these proofs. > The paper shows the actual execution trace of the simulation of P(P) by > H cannot possibly ever stop running unless its simulation is aborted. That's part of the internal design of the alleged H, and has no relevance for the proofs we're talking about > Because this is the definition of a computation that never halts > H(P,P)==0 is impossibly incorrect. "Impossibly correct" is meaningless. The point here is that if H is a non-halting computation, it is not a halting decider, regardless of anything else. > -- > 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 | 2021-07-20 14:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) |
| Message-ID | <kumdnVmnUMqsg2r9nZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36718 |
On 7/20/2021 1:53 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2021 12:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>>>> I show all the steps of exactly how H(P,P)==0 is derived.
>
>>> You don't. You haven't yet published the source code of an alleged H.
>
>>>> That you simply ignore these steps and claim that I am incorrect is
>>>> simply dishonest.
>
>>> No, it's being dishonest to indulge you with the suggestion that what
>>> you are doing has any possible validity. It is unimportant and
>>> uninteresting why H(P,P)==0, if it actually is. It has no bearing on
>>> the halting theorem proofs, which work regardless of the nature of any
>>> purported halting decider. Seeing as how you can't disprove these
>>> proofs honestly, you resort to falsehoods and obfuscation. Even so,
>>> the other posters on this newsgroup have seen through it and exposed
>>> it. When is all this nonsense going to end?
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> All of the proofs conclusively prove that H cannot possibly return a
>> Boolean value corresponding to the actual halt status of P to P in the
>> above computation.
>
> Wow!
>
>> None of the proofs bother to examine whether or not returning a correct
>> halt status from H to P in the above computation is required, they
>> simply assume that it is required. *That is their error*
>
> For crying out loud! It is an error to require what is required by the
> statement of the problem? The central element of the halting problem is
> a *UNIVERSAL* halting decider. And you're saying insisting upon this
> *universality* is an error?
>
I universal halt decider is one thing.
A universal halt decider that must return a correct halt status to an
input that does the opposite of whatever it decides is a much narrower
specification.
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
Although H cannot possibly return the correct halt status of P(P) to P
because P does the opposite of whatever H Boolean value H returns H can
return the correct halt status to main() after aborting the infinitely
nested simulation specified by P.
> Don't be stupid. There is no error in these proofs.
>
>> The paper shows the actual execution trace of the simulation of P(P) by
>> H cannot possibly ever stop running unless its simulation is aborted.
>
> That's part of the internal design of the alleged H, and has no relevance
> for the proofs we're talking about
>
It is a part of the internal design of halt decider that the proofs
never bothered to consider.
>> Because this is the definition of a computation that never halts
>> H(P,P)==0 is impossibly incorrect.
>
> "Impossibly correct" is meaningless. The point here is that if H is a
> non-halting computation, it is not a halting decider, regardless of
> anything else.
>
X > Y and Y > Z then X > Z follows by logical necessity.
Anything that follows by logical necessity is impossibly incorrect.
>> --
>> 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]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web