Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #49754 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-05 20:45 +0100 |
| Last post | 2022-05-06 12:34 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
On Strachey Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 20:45 +0100
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: On Strachey Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 22:39 +0100
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:48 -0500
Re: On Strachey Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 22:53 +0100
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:18 -0500
Re: On Strachey Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 02:34 +0100
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:40 -0500
Re: On Strachey Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 03:53 +0100
Re: On Strachey Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 02:59 +0100
Re: On Strachey Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 03:50 +0100
Re: On Strachey Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-05 23:01 -0600
Re: On Strachey Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 15:42 +0100
Re: On Strachey Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 14:56 +0100
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 11:58 -0500
Re: On Strachey Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 01:11 +0100
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 19:31 -0500
Re: On Strachey Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 02:07 +0100
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 20:34 -0500
Re: On Strachey Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-06 23:08 -0400
Re: On Strachey Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:47 +0100
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 18:14 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 16:35 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 19:19 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 17:48 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 20:08 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 18:26 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 21:20 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 19:36 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:31 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 09:02 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 11:05 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 09:30 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 11:39 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 09:52 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:18 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 10:26 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 15:17 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 13:27 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 15:51 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 13:59 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 16:19 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 14:30 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:24 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 15:56 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 18:13 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 16:44 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:52 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:50 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 14:51 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 14:53 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:18 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 15:34 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:44 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 15:53 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 18:03 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 16:11 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 18:19 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 16:23 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 18:30 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 16:42 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ][ proof that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 07:16 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ][ proof that I am correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-10 19:23 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:02 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-09 16:12 -0600
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:36 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-09 20:13 -0600
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 23:39 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 22:22 -0500
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-09 20:48 -0700
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:43 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:40 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:39 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:37 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-07 21:09 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-07 21:22 -0400
Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 00:46 +0100
Re: On Strachey Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 00:58 +0100
Re: On Strachey Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 16:09 +0300
Re: On Strachey Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 14:59 +0100
Re: On Strachey Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 19:16 +0300
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 11:49 -0500
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 12:10 -0500
Re: On Strachey olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 12:34 -0500
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 20:45 +0100 |
| Subject | On Strachey |
| Message-ID | <20220505204551.00001f5f@reddwarf.jmc> |
Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the same flaw. I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems reasonable. :D /Flibble
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51fm3$915$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49754 |
On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed impossible > but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's impossible program > is impossible not due to the contradiction he posits but is instead > impossible due to an invalid infinite recursion (a category error > in this case) which prevents the contradiction from ever being realised. > As Strachey claims his "Impossible Program" proof is based on > communication he had with Turing it seems reasonable to assume that > Turing's proof has the same flaw. > > I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read what > Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems reasonable. :D > > /Flibble > What Turing wrote never mentions halting: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf This proof is the clearest one that provide all of its details as explicit state transitions: https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf All of the experts will agree that it is accurately specifies the halting theorem. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 22:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220505223908.00001a9e@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49765 |
On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:30:41 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed > > impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's > > impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he > > posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite > > recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the > > contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his > > "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with > > Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the > > same flaw. > > > > I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read > > what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems reasonable. > > :D > > > > /Flibble > > > > What Turing wrote never mentions halting: > https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" [Wikipedia, 2022] /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51gn6$fjt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49768 |
On 5/5/2022 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:30:41 -0500 > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed >>> impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's >>> impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he >>> posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite >>> recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the >>> contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his >>> "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with >>> Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the >>> same flaw. >>> >>> I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read >>> what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems reasonable. >>> :D >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> What Turing wrote never mentions halting: >> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf > > "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the > halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" > [Wikipedia, 2022] > > /Flibble > Yes what you said is equally true: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 22:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220505225335.00007d75@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49772 |
On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:48:21 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/5/2022 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:30:41 -0500 > > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed > >>> impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's > >>> impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he > >>> posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite > >>> recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the > >>> contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his > >>> "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with > >>> Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the > >>> same flaw. > >>> > >>> I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read > >>> what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems > >>> reasonable. :D > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> What Turing wrote never mentions halting: > >> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf > > > > "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the > > halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" > > [Wikipedia, 2022] > > > > /Flibble > > > > Yes what you said is equally true: > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X The fact it wasn't called The Halting Problem when Turing wrote his paper doesn't really change any facts on the ground? /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 17:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51ig5$t3s$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49773 |
On 5/5/2022 4:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:48:21 -0500 > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/5/2022 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:30:41 -0500 >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed >>>>> impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's >>>>> impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he >>>>> posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite >>>>> recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the >>>>> contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his >>>>> "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with >>>>> Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the >>>>> same flaw. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read >>>>> what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems >>>>> reasonable. :D >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> What Turing wrote never mentions halting: >>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>> >>> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" >>> [Wikipedia, 2022] >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> Yes what you said is equally true: >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X > > The fact it wasn't called The Halting Problem when Turing wrote his > paper doesn't really change any facts on the ground? > > /Flibble > Right, so it proves that you are right and Ben is wrong. What Turing wrote in 1936 is now known as the halting theorem. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 02:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87czgrmok4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49780 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 4:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:48:21 -0500 >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/5/2022 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:30:41 -0500 >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed >>>>>> impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's >>>>>> impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he >>>>>> posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite >>>>>> recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the >>>>>> contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his >>>>>> "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with >>>>>> Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the >>>>>> same flaw. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read >>>>>> what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems >>>>>> reasonable. :D >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What Turing wrote never mentions halting: >>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>> >>>> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" >>>> [Wikipedia, 2022] >>>> >>> >>> Yes what you said is equally true: >>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X >> >> The fact it wasn't called The Halting Problem when Turing wrote his >> paper doesn't really change any facts on the ground? > > Right, so it proves that you are right and Ben is wrong. > What Turing wrote in 1936 is now known as the halting theorem. Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves that someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need for facts? Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. It proves a related theorem about the outputs -- the symbols a TM writes to the tape. Did Turing know, in 1936, that halting could not be decided? Almost certainly. But he didn't prove it because his concern was about the strings written, even those that are not finite. (It also uses a term, "cycle-free" that is likely to mislead the casual reader.) -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 20:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51u9t$9co$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49791 |
On 5/5/2022 8:34 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/5/2022 4:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:48:21 -0500 >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/5/2022 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:30:41 -0500 >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed >>>>>>> impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's >>>>>>> impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he >>>>>>> posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite >>>>>>> recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the >>>>>>> contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his >>>>>>> "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with >>>>>>> Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the >>>>>>> same flaw. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read >>>>>>> what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems >>>>>>> reasonable. :D >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What Turing wrote never mentions halting: >>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>> >>>>> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >>>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" >>>>> [Wikipedia, 2022] >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes what you said is equally true: >>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X >>> >>> The fact it wasn't called The Halting Problem when Turing wrote his >>> paper doesn't really change any facts on the ground? >> >> Right, so it proves that you are right and Ben is wrong. >> What Turing wrote in 1936 is now known as the halting theorem. > > Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves that > someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need for facts? > > Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. It proves a related theorem > about the outputs -- the symbols a TM writes to the tape. Did Turing > know, in 1936, that halting could not be decided? Almost certainly. > But he didn't prove it because his concern was about the strings > written, even those that are not finite. > > (It also uses a term, "cycle-free" that is likely to mislead the casual > reader.) > Turing's paper is construed to be the foundation of the halting theorem even though the term halting was not applied to it until 1958. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 03:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87sfpn9xte.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49795 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 8:34 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/5/2022 4:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:48:21 -0500 >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/5/2022 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 16:30:41 -0500 >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/5/2022 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> Strachey's "Impossible Program" [Strachey, 1965] is indeed >>>>>>>> impossible but not for the reason Strachey suggests. Strachey's >>>>>>>> impossible program is impossible not due to the contradiction he >>>>>>>> posits but is instead impossible due to an invalid infinite >>>>>>>> recursion (a category error in this case) which prevents the >>>>>>>> contradiction from ever being realised. As Strachey claims his >>>>>>>> "Impossible Program" proof is based on communication he had with >>>>>>>> Turing it seems reasonable to assume that Turing's proof has the >>>>>>>> same flaw. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suppose at some point I should stop trolling and actually read >>>>>>>> what Turing wrote so I don't have to rely on what seems >>>>>>>> reasonable. :D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What Turing wrote never mentions halting: >>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >>>>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist" >>>>>> [Wikipedia, 2022] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes what you said is equally true: >>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X >>>> >>>> The fact it wasn't called The Halting Problem when Turing wrote his >>>> paper doesn't really change any facts on the ground? >>> >>> Right, so it proves that you are right and Ben is wrong. >>> What Turing wrote in 1936 is now known as the halting theorem. >> >> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves that >> someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need for facts? >> >> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. It proves a related theorem >> about the outputs -- the symbols a TM writes to the tape. Did Turing >> know, in 1936, that halting could not be decided? Almost certainly. >> >> But he didn't prove it because his concern was about the strings >> written, even those that are not finite. >> >> (It also uses a term, "cycle-free" that is likely to mislead the casual >> reader.) > > Turing's paper is construed to be the foundation of the halting > theorem even though the term halting was not applied to it until 1958. > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X It is not only construed to be, it /is/ the foundation of the halting theorem. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 02:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220506025943.00006c94@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49791 |
On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves that > someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need for facts? > > Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 03:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y1zf9xx5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49800 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves that >> someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need for facts? >> >> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. > > [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: > > "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the > halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem And? People like you write wikipedia articles. This seems like a very odd debate since you could simply see for your self. Academics (like Turing) publish papers so we can all see what they are saying. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 23:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <t52a3e$joq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49815 |
On 5/5/2022 8:50 PM, Ben wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > >> On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 >> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> >>> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves that >>> someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need for facts? >>> >>> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. >> >> [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: >> >> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > And? People like you write wikipedia articles. > > This seems like a very odd debate since you could simply see for your > self. Academics (like Turing) publish papers so we can all see what > they are saying. I pulled Davis /The undecidable/ off the shelf recently - it includes The Turing paper. I think that you have been referring to Chapter or Section 8 and that is as close to mucking about with halting as he got. Your reading is, of course, correct. The fact that the idiot and his sock puppet were the other side of the dialogue, kept me from butting in for a few reasons: 1) the term "cycle-free" being used as you noted above and 2) the use of a "diagonal argument" for what he did prove. Both terms, I thought, would drive the two/one to utter madness and confusion since we've seen that diagonal arguments are beyond their comprehension and cycle-free would conjure visions of infinite recursion and the "Demons of the Christmas story about Scrooge". When ignorant of or confronted with words not understood they go into a most interesting tail (or is that tale) spin. So I passed. Since you broached the topic, I thought what the hell ..... -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 15:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220506154214.000026e9@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49826 |
On Thu, 5 May 2022 23:01:29 -0600 Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote: > On 5/5/2022 8:50 PM, Ben wrote: > > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > > > >> On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 > >> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves > >>> that someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need > >>> for facts? > >>> > >>> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. > >> > >> [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: > >> > >> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the > >> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > > > And? People like you write wikipedia articles. > > > > This seems like a very odd debate since you could simply see for > > your self. Academics (like Turing) publish papers so we can all > > see what they are saying. > > I pulled Davis /The undecidable/ off the shelf recently - it includes > The Turing paper. I think that you have been referring to Chapter or > Section 8 and that is as close to mucking about with halting as he > got. Your reading is, of course, correct. The fact that the idiot and > his sock puppet were the other side of the dialogue, kept me from > butting in for a few reasons: 1) the term "cycle-free" being used as > you noted above and 2) the use of a "diagonal argument" for what he > did prove. Both terms, I thought, would drive the two/one to utter > madness and confusion since we've seen that diagonal arguments are > beyond their comprehension and cycle-free would conjure visions of > infinite recursion and the "Demons of the Christmas story about > Scrooge". When ignorant of or confronted with words not understood > they go into a most interesting tail (or is that tale) spin. So I > passed. Since you broached the topic, I thought what the hell ..... Gas. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 14:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220506145647.00005eb2@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49815 |
On Fri, 06 May 2022 03:50:46 +0100 Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > > > On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 > > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves > >> that someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need > >> for facts? > >> > >> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. > > > > [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: > > > > "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the > > halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > And? People like you write wikipedia articles. Most Wikipedia articles crowd source peer review by multiple experts in their field: who should I trust? Those experts or random guy on Usenet? I think the answer is obvious. If you think the Wikipedia is incorrect then either correct it and have your corrections peer reviewed or shut the fuck up. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t53k3u$ens$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49844 |
On 5/6/2022 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Fri, 06 May 2022 03:50:46 +0100 > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >>> On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 >>> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves >>>> that someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need >>>> for facts? >>>> >>>> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. >>> >>> [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: >>> >>> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >> >> And? People like you write wikipedia articles. > > Most Wikipedia articles crowd source peer review by multiple experts in > their field: who should I trust? Those experts or random guy on > Usenet? I think the answer is obvious. > > If you think the Wikipedia is incorrect then either correct it and have > your corrections peer reviewed or shut the fuck up. > > /Flibble > Ben really hates to get down to the essence of things he loves to quibble over tiny little inessential details. It is currently understood that Turing's 1936 paper does establish what is now known as the halting theorem. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 01:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y1zeyzfd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49856 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/6/2022 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Fri, 06 May 2022 03:50:46 +0100 >> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 >>>> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves >>>>> that someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need >>>>> for facts? >>>>> >>>>> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. >>>> >>>> [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: >>>> >>>> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>> >>> And? People like you write wikipedia articles. >> Most Wikipedia articles crowd source peer review by multiple experts in >> their field: who should I trust? Those experts or random guy on >> Usenet? I think the answer is obvious. >> If you think the Wikipedia is incorrect then either correct it and have >> your corrections peer reviewed or shut the fuck up. >> /Flibble >> > > Ben really hates to get down to the essence of things he loves to > quibble over tiny little inessential details. So why did I go even further than you did to say of the result in that paper: "It is not only construed to be, it /is/ the foundation of the halting theorem."? > It is currently understood that Turing's 1936 paper does establish > what is now known as the halting theorem. Yes, provided you are not using established to mean proved as some people do. Turing proved a very closely related result from with the halting theorem would follow as a corollary. The halting theorem follows, trivially, from lots of simpler theorems, none of which have you bothered to read. In Linz, the theorem is presented as a corollary of a simpler theorem in chapter 11. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 19:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t54elt$kqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49909 |
On 5/6/2022 7:11 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/6/2022 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Fri, 06 May 2022 03:50:46 +0100 >>> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 06 May 2022 02:34:35 +0100 >>>>> Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Two people who have not read the paper have persuaded themselves >>>>>> that someone who has must be wrong about it. Is there any need >>>>>> for facts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Turing's 1936 paper is not about halting. >>>>> >>>>> [Wikipedia, 2022] disagrees with you: >>>>> >>>>> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the >>>>> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist." >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>> >>>> And? People like you write wikipedia articles. >>> Most Wikipedia articles crowd source peer review by multiple experts in >>> their field: who should I trust? Those experts or random guy on >>> Usenet? I think the answer is obvious. >>> If you think the Wikipedia is incorrect then either correct it and have >>> your corrections peer reviewed or shut the fuck up. >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> Ben really hates to get down to the essence of things he loves to >> quibble over tiny little inessential details. > > So why did I go even further than you did to say of the result in that > paper: > > "It is not only construed to be, it /is/ the foundation of the halting > theorem."? > >> It is currently understood that Turing's 1936 paper does establish >> what is now known as the halting theorem. > > Yes, provided you are not using established to mean proved as some > people do. Turing proved a very closely related result from with the > halting theorem would follow as a corollary. > > The halting theorem follows, trivially, from lots of simpler theorems, > none of which have you bothered to read. In Linz, the theorem is > presented as a corollary of a simpler theorem in chapter 11. > 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5. I will look at them. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 02:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wneyxi91.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49911 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/6/2022 7:11 PM, Ben wrote: >> The halting theorem follows, trivially, from lots of simpler theorems, >> none of which have you bothered to read. In Linz, the theorem is >> presented as a corollary of a simpler theorem in chapter 11. > > 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5. I will look at them. Goodness! A good move. Why the change of heart? -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t54ic0$afj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49917 |
On 5/6/2022 8:07 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/6/2022 7:11 PM, Ben wrote: > >>> The halting theorem follows, trivially, from lots of simpler theorems, >>> none of which have you bothered to read. In Linz, the theorem is >>> presented as a corollary of a simpler theorem in chapter 11. >> >> 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5. I will look at them. > > Goodness! A good move. Why the change of heart? > There is enough progress now that I don't have to have an absolutely single-minded focus. THIS IS AN EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT: Both H() and H1() take the machine code of P as input parameters and correctly compute the mapping from this input to an accept ore reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that these inputs actually specify. This makes them correct halt deciders for this input. I have correctly refuted the halting theorem on the basis of the above facts. That people here insist on contradicting facts that they know are true is not any actual rebuttal at all. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 23:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <SoldK.6314$t72a.1658@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #49920 |
On 5/6/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/6/2022 8:07 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/6/2022 7:11 PM, Ben wrote: >> >>>> The halting theorem follows, trivially, from lots of simpler theorems, >>>> none of which have you bothered to read. In Linz, the theorem is >>>> presented as a corollary of a simpler theorem in chapter 11. >>> >>> 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5. I will look at them. >> >> Goodness! A good move. Why the change of heart? >> > > There is enough progress now that I don't have to have an absolutely > single-minded focus. > > THIS IS AN EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT: > Both H() and H1() take the machine code of P as input parameters and > correctly compute the mapping from this input to an accept ore reject > state on the basis of the actual behavior that these inputs actually > specify. > > This makes them correct halt deciders for this input. I have correctly > refuted the halting theorem on the basis of the above facts. That people > here insist on contradicting facts that they know are true is not any > actual rebuttal at all. > No, to be correct Halt Deciders, they need to compute the HALTING FUNCTION of that input, which is the behavior of the machine + input represented by their input, in this case P(P). Since you claim that this is not what they compute (because you say they can't), they are not Halt Decider. Since your definition of "Correct Simulation" disagrees with the definiton used by the Halting Problem, you are not working on it, but on your POOP, and you can't actually say anything about halting based on your work. Note, the definition of Halting refers to the behavior of a Machine, and that machine is what the first part of the input represents, which is P. Since you say P isn't the input, then your representation doesn't match that needed to be a Halt Decider, it is just that simple. Maybe once you try to write an actual Turing Machine and understand the difference between the actual tape and what it represents, maybe you will understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web