Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #49978 > unrolled thread

Next move

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory

Contents

  Next move Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 23:38 +0100
    Re: Next move Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 10:24 +0300
      Re: Next move olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:45 -0500
        Re: Next move Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-09 18:34 +0100
          Re: Next move olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:43 -0500
        Re: Next move Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:21 -0400
    Re: Next move Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-09 00:03 +0100
      Re: Next move olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-08 21:12 -0500
        Re: Next move Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-09 04:28 +0200
          Re: Next move [ truth itself is broken ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-08 22:20 -0500
            Re: Next move [ truth itself is broken ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 07:05 -0400
            Re: Next move Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 14:30 +0100
        Re: Next move Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 22:38 -0400

#49978 — Next move

What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm to
establish if a program and its inputs halt.

First up: functional requirements.

/Flibble

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#50012

On 2022-05-07 22:38:07 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm to
> establish if a program and its inputs halt.
> 
> First up: functional requirements.

You havn't established anything. Your bluff about the category error
is too easy to expose. You should try equivocation error instead. Then
you can claim a longer chain of equivocations if nothing else helps.

Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50078

On 5/8/2022 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-05-07 22:38:07 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
> 
>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm to
>> establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>
>> First up: functional requirements.
> 
> You havn't established anything. Your bluff about the category error
> is too easy to expose. You should try equivocation error instead. Then
> you can claim a longer chain of equivocations if nothing else helps.
> 
> Mikko
> 

Flibble's idea of a category error is a brilliant new insight.
It covers most pathological self-reference error.

The huge mistake of logic is that it simply assumes that an expression 
of language that is not true must be false, simply assuming all of the 
errors away.

-- 
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]

#50104

On Mon, 9 May 2022 10:45:19 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/8/2022 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > On 2022-05-07 22:38:07 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
> >   
> >> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as
> >> elaborated by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a
> >> general algorithm to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
> >>
> >> First up: functional requirements.  
> > 
> > You havn't established anything. Your bluff about the category error
> > is too easy to expose. You should try equivocation error instead.
> > Then you can claim a longer chain of equivocations if nothing else
> > helps.
> > 
> > Mikko
> >   
> 
> Flibble's idea of a category error is a brilliant new insight.
> It covers most pathological self-reference error.

Did you not read my retraction? I was in error: there is no
category error as there is no infinite recursion.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50108

On 5/9/2022 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2022 10:45:19 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/8/2022 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-07 22:38:07 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>    
>>>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as
>>>> elaborated by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a
>>>> general algorithm to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>>>
>>>> First up: functional requirements.
>>>
>>> You havn't established anything. Your bluff about the category error
>>> is too easy to expose. You should try equivocation error instead.
>>> Then you can claim a longer chain of equivocations if nothing else
>>> helps.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>    
>>
>> Flibble's idea of a category error is a brilliant new insight.
>> It covers most pathological self-reference error.
> 
> Did you not read my retraction? I was in error: there is no
> category error as there is no infinite recursion.
> 
> /Flibble
> 
> 

Although category error does not apply to the HP it does apply to 
Gödel(1931), Tarski(1936) the Liar Paradox and possibly Russell's Paradox.



-- 
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]

#50171

On 5/9/22 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-05-07 22:38:07 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>
>>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
>>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm to
>>> establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>>
>>> First up: functional requirements.
>>
>> You havn't established anything. Your bluff about the category error
>> is too easy to expose. You should try equivocation error instead. Then
>> you can claim a longer chain of equivocations if nothing else helps.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
> 
> Flibble's idea of a category error is a brilliant new insight.
> It covers most pathological self-reference error.
> 
> The huge mistake of logic is that it simply assumes that an expression 
> of language that is not true must be false, simply assuming all of the 
> errors away.
> 

But, if the statement can be shown to be a Truth bearer, then if it is 
not true in MUST be false.

The statement "Machine M given input w Halts?", IS a Truth Bearer, as it 
will either Halt, or it won't, there is not possible middle ground.

Just like given an integer, it will either be Even or Odd, there is no 
other possibility. (There are no integers that are both even and odd at 
the same time or neither even or odd).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50050

On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:

> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
> to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
> 
> First up: functional requirements.
> 
> /Flibble
 
Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50058

On 5/8/2022 6:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
> 
>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
>> to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>
>> First up: functional requirements.
>>
>> /Flibble
>   
> Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D
> 
> /Flibble
> 

When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite 
recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can 
correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this input.

The first three pages of this paper examine this concretely as actually 
executed in the x86utm operating system:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

-- 
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]

#50060

Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 6:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
>>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
>>> to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>>
>>> First up: functional requirements.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>> Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
> 
> When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite 
> recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can 
> correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this input.
> 
> The first three pages of this paper examine this concretely as actually 
> executed in the x86utm operating system:

Peter, you should consider seriously what's just happened with Mr
Flibble.

This is a very unusual, hence deserving to be pointed out, situation :
someone  (Mr Flibble) wrong on Usenet (or Internet for that matters...)
admitted after only a few weeks of posting nonsense that he was actually
wrong.

After all these years of crankery, could you exhibit the the same
integrity?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50062 — Re: Next move [ truth itself is broken ]

On 5/8/2022 9:28 PM, Python wrote:
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 6:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
>>>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
>>>> to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>>>
>>>> First up: functional requirements.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>> Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite 
>> recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can 
>> correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this input.
>>
>> The first three pages of this paper examine this concretely as 
>> actually executed in the x86utm operating system:
> 
> Peter, you should consider seriously what's just happened with Mr
> Flibble.
> 
> This is a very unusual, hence deserving to be pointed out, situation :
> someone  (Mr Flibble) wrong on Usenet (or Internet for that matters...)
> admitted after only a few weeks of posting nonsense that he was actually
> wrong.
> 
> After all these years of crankery, could you exhibit the the same
> integrity?
> 

My biggest mistake that cost me credibility was that I was not
using the conventional terms of the art in their conventional way.

Now I am using subtle nuances the conventional terms of the art that are 
too subtle for anyone besides one computer science professor that I have 
spoken with.

I have never been wrong in the essence of what I have been saying.

The reason that I keep going on Gödel(1931), Tarski(1936), Turing(1936) 
is because if these things are correct then truth itself is broken.


-- 
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]

#50064 — Re: Next move [ truth itself is broken ]

On 5/8/22 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 9:28 PM, Python wrote:
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 6:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
>>>>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
>>>>> to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> First up: functional requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>> Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite 
>>> recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can 
>>> correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this 
>>> input.
>>>
>>> The first three pages of this paper examine this concretely as 
>>> actually executed in the x86utm operating system:
>>
>> Peter, you should consider seriously what's just happened with Mr
>> Flibble.
>>
>> This is a very unusual, hence deserving to be pointed out, situation :
>> someone  (Mr Flibble) wrong on Usenet (or Internet for that matters...)
>> admitted after only a few weeks of posting nonsense that he was actually
>> wrong.
>>
>> After all these years of crankery, could you exhibit the the same
>> integrity?
>>
> 
> My biggest mistake that cost me credibility was that I was not
> using the conventional terms of the art in their conventional way.
> 
> Now I am using subtle nuances the conventional terms of the art that are 
> too subtle for anyone besides one computer science professor that I have 
> spoken with.
> 

No, you are still not using the Terms of Art in there correct way.

> I have never been wrong in the essence of what I have been saying.

Nope, you are WRONG.

> 
> The reason that I keep going on Gödel(1931), Tarski(1936), Turing(1936) 
> is because if these things are correct then truth itself is broken.
> 

Nope, you are just wrong about Truth.

You seem to have a problem with this, but it is true, there ARE things 
that are true but not provable.

Those things will not be in what is called "Knowledge", because you can 
only truly KNOW things are true that can be proven.

Note, epistemology discusses KNOWLEDGE, not TRUTH. It asks about what is 
KNOWN, not what it TRUE.

Your confusion of these two terms seems to be the root of your problems, 
and you are sacrificing Truth because of that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50067

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/8/2022 9:28 PM, Python wrote:

>> Peter, you should consider seriously what's just happened with Mr
>> Flibble.
>>
>> This is a very unusual, hence deserving to be pointed out, situation :
>> someone  (Mr Flibble) wrong on Usenet (or Internet for that matters...)
>> admitted after only a few weeks of posting nonsense that he was actually
>> wrong.
>>
>> After all these years of crankery, could you exhibit the the same
>> integrity?
>
> My biggest mistake that cost me credibility was that I was not
> using the conventional terms of the art in their conventional way.

Sadly that now includes the term "halting problem".  It's defined to be
something you now simply reject.  The term, when used by you, allows a
"halt decider" TM to reject at least one string that encodes a halting
computation.

Given this simple and obvious problem, it's clear that you purpose is
simply to chat with people about stuff.  There can't be any greater
purpose.

-- 
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50061

On 5/8/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 6:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated
>>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
>>> to establish if a program and its inputs halt.
>>>
>>> First up: functional requirements.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>> Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
> 
> When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite 
> recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can 
> correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this input.
> 
> The first three pages of this paper examine this concretely as actually 
> executed in the x86utm operating system:
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5 
> 
> 

Only because you are't defining your condition to be that of a halt decider.

H(P,P), if H IS a Halt Decider, must report TRUE if P(P) Halts, which 
since YOUR H(P,P) returns FALSE, it will.

Your little ditty about that H must only compute based on the behavior 
of its actual input is incorrect, at the the way you try to define it.

A decider is only ABLE to compute a result based on some sequence of 
states that the decider goes through driven by its input, but to be a 
"something" decider, that result must match the "something" function.

TO be a HALT decider, that mapping is based on the behavior of the 
machine/input its input repreents, even if that isn't exactly what H can 
get from that input.

If you claim that H isn't "allowed" to decide on that, then you are just 
stating that it is actually impossible to make a halt decider (and thus 
proving the theory) since if you can't build an input for your decider, 
then you can't ask it the right question, so it can't correctly decide 
the needed question.

Mixing up that abilities and the requirements of a Halt Decider just 
shows you are making a category error in your logic, which is actually 
proving the statement you are trying to disprove.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory

csiph-web