Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #49731 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-05 17:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2022-05-06 16:39 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 67 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 17:50 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:58 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 20:56 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:15 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 02:43 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:59 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 04:08 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 20:51 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 20:52 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 21:15 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 21:16 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:35 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:37 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 02:38 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:42 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 03:59 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:33 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 15:02 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-06 16:18 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 11:55 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 12:52 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 13:42 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 16:59 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 15:06 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 17:16 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 15:20 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 18:13 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 16:19 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 11:03 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:41 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 23:43 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-07 19:59 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 01:01 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-07 20:18 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 01:55 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 11:31 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 09:49 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 13:00 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 12:57 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 07:45 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 13:02 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 08:31 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 13:39 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 14:10 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 20:06 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 15:39 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 21:14 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 17:40 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 23:04 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 00:26 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 19:40 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:55 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:13 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:51 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-09 18:31 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:36 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:15 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:14 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:49 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-09 18:31 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:37 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:47 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 19:33 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 11:36 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:17 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 11:06 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 16:39 +0300
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 17:50 +0100 |
| Subject | On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) |
| Message-ID | <20220505175034.0000253c@reddwarf.jmc> |
This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play word games. The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and thus invalid. /Flibble
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t516nq$1u4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49731 |
On 5/5/2022 11:50 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play > word games. > > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid > due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not > from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error > in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the > proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. > > The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that > which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the > decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and > thus invalid. > > /Flibble > Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox. For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of what f predicts g will do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem -- 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 | 2022-05-05 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ee17ois3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49753 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same > self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox. > > For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a > "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own > source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of > what f predicts g will do. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How long has it taken you to get to this point? -- 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 17:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51ia8$t3s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49757 |
On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same >> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox. >> >> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a >> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own >> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of >> what f predicts g will do. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How > long has it taken you to get to this point? > H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect. -- 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 02:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871qx7mo5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49778 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same >>> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox. >>> >>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a >>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own >>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of >>> what f predicts g will do. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >> So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How >> long has it taken you to get to this point? > > H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct > H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct > > You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the > mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect. Any conclusion I can form this is unkind. You are either dishonest and are intentionally misrepresenting what other people write, or you are so lost that even after 18 years you don't know what that halting problem is. -- 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 20:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51vep$gnk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49797 |
On 5/5/2022 8:43 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same >>>> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox. >>>> >>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a >>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own >>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of >>>> what f predicts g will do. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>> So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How >>> long has it taken you to get to this point? >> >> H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct >> H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct >> >> You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the >> mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect. > > Any conclusion I can form this is unkind. You are either dishonest and > are intentionally misrepresenting what other people write, or you are so > lost that even after 18 years you don't know what that halting problem > is. > I am not trying to be unkind. When people happily disagree with verified facts I construe that as playing head games for sadistic pleasure. Those people really need a strong (at least metaphorical) slap in the face. It is a proven fact that H(P,P) and H1(P,P) do correctly compute the mapping from their input parameters to the halt status specified by these inputs. -- 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 04:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h7639x2y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49801 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 8:43 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/5/2022 2:56 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Proof of this is that the halting theorem has the exactly same >>>>> self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox. >>>>> >>>>> For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a >>>>> "pathological" program g, called with some input, can pass its own >>>>> source and its input to f and then specifically do the opposite of >>>>> what f predicts g will do. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>> So finally you agree that no single TM can decide TM halting??? How >>>> long has it taken you to get to this point? >>> >>> H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct >>> H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct >>> >>> You keep trying to get away with a halt decider that computes the >>> mapping from non-inputs even when you know this is incorrect. >> >> Any conclusion I can form this is unkind. You are either dishonest and >> are intentionally misrepresenting what other people write, or you are so >> lost that even after 18 years you don't know what that halting problem >> is. > > I am not trying to be unkind. I meant that I had no option but to be unkind. I can't see any interpretation of your post that does show you up as wither dishonest or ignorant. > When people happily disagree with verified facts I construe that as > playing head games for sadistic pleasure. Those people really need a > strong (at least metaphorical) slap in the face. > > It is a proven fact that H(P,P) and H1(P,P) do correctly compute the > mapping from their input parameters to the halt status specified by > these inputs. No it's not. You have not even stated what this new mantra of yours means. What's not in dispute is that H(P,P) == false even though P(P) halts. You dispute that this means that H is not a halt decoder (for this one case) because, I think, you claim that we can't legitimately specify that H(X,Y) should report on the halting of X(Y). You could have said that 18 years ago, but then we'd have ignored you. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 20:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87k0azoj0e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49731 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play > word games. > > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid > due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not > from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error > in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the > proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it, have you? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 20:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220505205238.0000442a@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49755 |
On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100 Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > > > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to > > play word games. > > > > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which > > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is > > invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] > > that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but > > from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous) > > infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. > > Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read > it, have you? Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey". /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 21:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wnezn3cm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49756 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100 > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >> > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to >> > play word games. >> > >> > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >> > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is >> > invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] >> > that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but >> > from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous) >> > infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. >> >> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read >> it, have you? > > Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey". If you have something to say, say it here. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 21:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220505211606.000057ef@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49759 |
On Thu, 05 May 2022 21:15:05 +0100 Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > > > On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100 > > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > >> > >> > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to > >> > play word games. > >> > > >> > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon > >> > which other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) > >> > is invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, > >> > 1965] that arises not from a function call-like infinite > >> > recursion but from a category error in the form of an invalid > >> > (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, > >> > 2022]. > >> > >> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't > >> read it, have you? > > > > Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey". > > If you have something to say, say it here. No. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 16:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51fv5$as4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49756 |
On 5/5/2022 2:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 05 May 2022 20:51:29 +0100 > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to >>> play word games. >>> >>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is >>> invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] >>> that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but >>> from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous) >>> infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. >> >> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read >> it, have you? > > Keep up. See my other reply "On Strachey". > > /Flibble > ON COMPUTABLE NUMBERS, WITH AN APPLICATION TO THE ENTSCHEIDUNGSPROBLEM By A. M. TURING. (1936) https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf It wasn't called the halting problem until 1958 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 16:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51g3l$as4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49755 |
On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > >> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play >> word games. >> >> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid >> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not >> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error >> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the >> proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. > > Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it, > have you? > Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree: 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 02:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877d6zmod9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49767 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >> >>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play >>> word games. >>> >>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid >>> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not >>> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error >>> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the >>> proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. >> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it, >> have you? > > Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree: > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X What? You cite a paper that says exactly what I am saying. Of course you are not clear about who you think "modern computer scientists would tend to disagree" with, but if it were Mr Silly Name you should have replied to his post not mine. -- 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 20:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51udn$9co$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49794 |
On 5/5/2022 8:38 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote: >>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >>> >>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play >>>> word games. >>>> >>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid >>>> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not >>>> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error >>>> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the >>>> proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. >>> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it, >>> have you? >> >> Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree: >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X > > What? You cite a paper that says exactly what I am saying. > > Of course you are not clear about who you think "modern computer > scientists would tend to disagree" with, but if it were Mr Silly Name > you should have replied to his post not mine. > Everyone understands that Turing's 1936 paper establishes 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 03:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mtfv9xid.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49796 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 8:38 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/5/2022 2:51 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: >>>> >>>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play >>>>> word games. >>>>> >>>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >>>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid >>>>> due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not >>>>> from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error >>>>> in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the >>>>> proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. >>>> Turing's paper does not prove the halting theorem. You haven't read it, >>>> have you? >>> >>> Modern computer scientists would tend to disagree: >>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222082100050X >> >> What? You cite a paper that says exactly what I am saying. >> >> Of course you are not clear about who you think "modern computer >> scientists would tend to disagree" with, but if it were Mr Silly Name >> you should have replied to his post not mine. > > Everyone understands that Turing's 1936 paper establishes the halting > theorem. For some meanings of "establishes" they do indeed. I'm not sure what or who you think "modern computer scientists would tend to disagree" with anymore. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 22:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5O%cK.17$wYy9.0@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #49731 |
On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to play > word games. > > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is invalid > due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that arises not > from a function call-like infinite recursion but from a category error > in the form of an invalid (erroneous) infinite recursion present in the > proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. > > The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that > which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the > decider with that which is being decided are infinitely recursive and > thus invalid. > > /Flibble > The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the program doesn't HAVE ANY recursion. The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if anything your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it. YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 15:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220506150253.00007c7f@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49807 |
On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:33:36 -0400 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to > > play word games. > > > > The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which > > other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is > > invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] > > that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but > > from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous) > > infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. > > > > The categories involved in the category error are the decider and > > that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to > > conflate the decider with that which is being decided are > > infinitely recursive and thus invalid. > > > > /Flibble > > > > The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the > program doesn't HAVE ANY recursion. The category error (as in invalid infinite recursion) is in the definition of the proof itself; we are not talking about a function call-like infinite recursion executed at runtime. > > The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if > anything your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it. The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due to the category error in the definition of the proof. > > YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to > decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have. Nope. The problem here is that you are a clueless wonder, as Olcott would put it. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 16:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t53ao6$33j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49846 |
Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:33:36 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to >>> play word games. >>> >>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is >>> invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] >>> that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but >>> from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous) >>> infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. >>> >>> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and >>> that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to >>> conflate the decider with that which is being decided are >>> infinitely recursive and thus invalid. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the >> program doesn't HAVE ANY recursion. > > The category error (as in invalid infinite recursion) is in the > definition of the proof itself; we are not talking about a function > call-like infinite recursion executed at runtime. > >> >> The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if >> anything your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it. > > The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due to > the category error in the definition of the proof. > >> >> YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to >> decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have. > > Nope. The problem here is that you are a clueless wonder, as Olcott > would put it. > > /Flibble > https://xkcd.com/386/ Ben Bacarisse is a real mathematician, you are the random guy spouting nonsense on the Internet. Nobody cares of your shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 11:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t53ju8$ens$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49847 |
On 5/6/2022 9:18 AM, Python wrote: > Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:33:36 -0400 >> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >> >>> On 5/5/22 12:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> This post is mostly for the benefit of Richard Damon who likes to >>>> play word games. >>>> >>>> The primary halting problem theorem proof [Turing, 1936] (upon which >>>> other currently extant halting problem proofs are derived) is >>>> invalid due to an invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] >>>> that arises not from a function call-like infinite recursion but >>>> from a category error in the form of an invalid (erroneous) >>>> infinite recursion present in the proof [Wikipedia, 2022]. >>>> >>>> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and >>>> that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to >>>> conflate the decider with that which is being decided are >>>> infinitely recursive and thus invalid. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>> >>> The "Program" is NOT iovalid for infinite recursion, because the >>> program doesn't HAVE ANY recursion. >> >> The category error (as in invalid infinite recursion) is in the >> definition of the proof itself; we are not talking about a function >> call-like infinite recursion executed at runtime. >> >>> >>> The "recursion" that happens is in the potential decider, so if >>> anything your argument just PROVES the Theorem, not refutes it. >> >> The decider could never be compiled and run in the first place due to >> the category error in the definition of the proof. >> >>> >>> YOU are the one making a category error, by calling the impossible to >>> decide program as having an attribute that it doesn't have. >> >> Nope. The problem here is that you are a clueless wonder, as Olcott >> would put it. >> >> /Flibble >> > > https://xkcd.com/386/ > > Ben Bacarisse is a real mathematician, you are the random guy spouting > nonsense on the Internet. Nobody cares of your shit. Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). Ben said that G is provable not knowing that the core of the 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem is that G is unprovable. Gödel says: We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. -- 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]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web