Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #35634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-03 10:19 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-07-04 14:14 +0100 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 130 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 10:19 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 08:25 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 10:32 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 11:56 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 11:19 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 18:28 +0200
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 11:51 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 19:18 +0200
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 12:19 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 19:33 +0200
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-03 19:10 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 13:49 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 14:29 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-03 17:25 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 11:49 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 14:17 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 14:08 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 15:43 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 15:37 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 17:58 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 17:20 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 18:55 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-03 23:57 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 18:13 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 19:04 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 18:34 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 20:06 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 19:26 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 21:21 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 20:41 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 22:13 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 21:22 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-03 23:24 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 22:32 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-04 06:40 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 09:24 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ prerequisites to understanding me] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-04 14:50 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-03 19:14 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 20:38 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-03 22:14 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-03 22:18 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 23:18 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-04 00:50 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 09:15 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-04 10:31 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 08:07 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-04 11:24 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-04 13:00 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 15:09 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-04 13:30 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 08:23 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-05 07:18 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 09:31 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 11:10 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 10:18 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 11:29 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 12:53 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 12:13 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-04 14:55 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-07-04 18:03 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 20:42 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-04 22:31 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 08:05 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 08:40 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 12:13 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-04 23:20 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-05 18:49 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-05 15:17 -0600
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 17:38 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 23:52 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 10:36 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 11:36 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 08:18 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 12:11 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Why can H ignore its own behavior? ](my thanks to Richard) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-04 15:02 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-03 21:20 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 16:21 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-04 01:23 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 19:30 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-04 17:46 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 12:00 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-05 02:04 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 20:57 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-05 03:14 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 21:28 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-04 22:33 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-04 22:09 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 07:33 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 08:38 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 10:57 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 09:59 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 11:34 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 13:16 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 12:48 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 14:36 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 12:18 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-05 23:58 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 19:54 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 21:29 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-06 03:35 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 22:30 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-06 06:47 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-06 04:15 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-06 13:23 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 07:21 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ halting criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 08:26 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ halting criteria ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 10:50 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ halting criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 09:56 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 10:30 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 09:33 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 11:02 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] (correction) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 09:35 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] (correction) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 12:38 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] (correction) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 12:10 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ already agreed ] (correction) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-05 13:43 -0400
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ Richard's excellent summation ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 19:12 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 13:15 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-03 21:09 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 16:06 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-04 01:44 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 19:59 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-04 02:34 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 20:46 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-04 17:45 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-03 19:15 +0100
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-03 13:58 -0500
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 22:37 -0700
Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-04 14:14 +0100
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 16:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] |
| Message-ID | <r-GdnXHIlvPzTH39nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #35658 |
On 7/3/2021 3:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> The Goldbach conjecture is not undecidable in the conventional sense
>> in that we know that both {Yes and No} are the wrong answer.
>
> That is not any of the conventional meanings of undecidable.
>
>> The Goldbach conjecture is undecided and not undecidable.
>
> The conjecture may very well be one of the formally undecidable
> propositions about which Gödel wrote in 1931. You most certainly don't
> know whether or not it is undecidable in this conventional sense of the
> word.
>
> You claim to want to write a paper about this. If you can't lean what
> these technical words mean, you won't get very far. And if you can but
> won't it suggests you are not serious.
>
I have to both know exactly what the conventional term of the art of
undecidable means and be able to show exactly how the philosophical
foundation of such a concept is incoherent.
In the mean time knowing the terminology can be side-stepped as long as
I shown exactly how H does get the right answer in the following
computation:
void P(u32 x)
{
u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)H, (u32)H);
Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
}
In the halting problem there exists TM/input pairs such that TM X cannot
return the correct halt status to input I.
Since there is no existing term-of-the-art for this case I will call it
an incorrect question.
An incorrect question Q is
(a) Question / decision problem Q
(b) Posed to (person / TM) X
(c) About (subject matter / input) I
(d) Such that the answer A to Q posed to X about I has no
correct value from the set of {yes,no} / {true,false}
When P asks H whether or not itself will halt on its input neither true
nor false is a correct halt status that H can return to P.
When Bill asks person X that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
There is no value from the set {yes, no} that X can provide that
correctly answers Bill's question.
All undecidable decision problems are only "undecidable" because they
are based on incorrect questions.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-04 01:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] |
| Message-ID | <87zgv2di12.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #35661 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> In the halting problem there exists TM/input pairs such that TM X
> cannot return the correct halt status to input I.
That's badly worded but you have the gist of it. No TM computes the
halting function because, for every TM, there is an infinity of inputs
which are incorrectly accepted or rejected by that TM.
Could you move on now?
> Since there is no existing term-of-the-art for this case I will call
> it an incorrect question.
That's an odd thing to call it, but if it makes you happy, go ahead.
Other people just call these the cases where X(I) does not correspond to
halts(I) -- colloquially, the cases X gets wrong.
> An incorrect question Q is
> (a) Question / decision problem Q
> (b) Posed to (person / TM) X
> (c) About (subject matter / input) I
> (d) Such that the answer A to Q posed to X about I has no
> correct value from the set of {yes,no} / {true,false}
> All undecidable decision problems are only "undecidable" because they
> are based on incorrect questions.
But, as you know, every instance of the halting problem has a correct
yea/no answer. This is also true, by definition, of every decision
problem. If there are any instances without a correct yes/no answer,
it's not decision problem. Whatever you are trying to fudge with your
hand-waving (a) to (d) and the weasel words "based on", it can't apply
to the halting problem.
Rather than waffle, why not build on the work of others? Just declare
that every undecidable problem (as established by the various theorems)
are what you will call "incorrect questions"?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 19:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] |
| Message-ID | <mf6dncTDN5-YlXz9nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #35674 |
On 7/3/2021 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> In the halting problem there exists TM/input pairs such that TM X
>> cannot return the correct halt status to input I.
>
> That's badly worded but you have the gist of it. No TM computes the
> halting function because, for every TM, there is an infinity of inputs
> which are incorrectly accepted or rejected by that TM.
>
> Could you move on now?
>
>> Since there is no existing term-of-the-art for this case I will call
>> it an incorrect question.
>
> That's an odd thing to call it, but if it makes you happy, go ahead.
> Other people just call these the cases where X(I) does not correspond to
> halts(I) -- colloquially, the cases X gets wrong.
>
>> An incorrect question Q is
>> (a) Question / decision problem Q
>> (b) Posed to (person / TM) X
>> (c) About (subject matter / input) I
>> (d) Such that the answer A to Q posed to X about I has no
>> correct value from the set of {yes,no} / {true,false}
>
>> All undecidable decision problems are only "undecidable" because they
>> are based on incorrect questions.
>
> But, as you know, every instance of the halting problem has a correct
> yea/no answer.
When we ask a guy that has beaten his wife:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
One of {yes, no} is the correct answer.
When we ask a guy that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Neither of {yes, no} is the correct answer.
> This is also true, by definition, of every decision
> problem. If there are any instances without a correct yes/no answer,
> it's not decision problem. Whatever you are trying to fudge with your
> hand-waving (a) to (d) and the weasel words "based on", it can't apply
> to the halting problem.
>
When we ask H what return value to P is the correct halt status of P(P)
neither true nor false are the correct return value.
> Rather than waffle, why not build on the work of others? Just declare
> that every undecidable problem (as established by the various theorems)
> are what you will call "incorrect questions"?
>
The only reason that undecidable decision problems exist is that the
foundation of the concept of analytical truth has been formed incoherently.
All undecidable decision problems only exist because semantic coherence
has never been propertly defined.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-04 02:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] |
| Message-ID | <20210704023413.000078da@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #35675 |
On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 19:59:49 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/2021 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> In the halting problem there exists TM/input pairs such that TM X
> >> cannot return the correct halt status to input I.
> >
> > That's badly worded but you have the gist of it. No TM computes the
> > halting function because, for every TM, there is an infinity of
> > inputs which are incorrectly accepted or rejected by that TM.
> >
> > Could you move on now?
> >
> >> Since there is no existing term-of-the-art for this case I will
> >> call it an incorrect question.
> >
> > That's an odd thing to call it, but if it makes you happy, go ahead.
> > Other people just call these the cases where X(I) does not
> > correspond to halts(I) -- colloquially, the cases X gets wrong.
> >
> >> An incorrect question Q is
> >> (a) Question / decision problem Q
> >> (b) Posed to (person / TM) X
> >> (c) About (subject matter / input) I
> >> (d) Such that the answer A to Q posed to X about I has no
> >> correct value from the set of {yes,no} / {true,false}
> >
> >> All undecidable decision problems are only "undecidable" because
> >> they are based on incorrect questions.
> >
> > But, as you know, every instance of the halting problem has a
> > correct yea/no answer.
>
> When we ask a guy that has beaten his wife:
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> One of {yes, no} is the correct answer.
>
> When we ask a guy that has never been married:
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> Neither of {yes, no} is the correct answer.
Do you extract these really really bad analogies from your ass?
>
> > This is also true, by definition, of every decision
> > problem. If there are any instances without a correct yes/no
> > answer, it's not decision problem. Whatever you are trying to
> > fudge with your hand-waving (a) to (d) and the weasel words "based
> > on", it can't apply to the halting problem.
> >
>
> When we ask H what return value to P is the correct halt status of
> P(P) neither true nor false are the correct return value.
>
> > Rather than waffle, why not build on the work of others? Just
> > declare that every undecidable problem (as established by the
> > various theorems) are what you will call "incorrect questions"?
> >
>
> The only reason that undecidable decision problems exist is that the
> foundation of the concept of analytical truth has been formed
> incoherently.
>
> All undecidable decision problems only exist because semantic
> coherence has never been propertly defined.
Take your fucking medication, dear.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 20:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] |
| Message-ID | <pb2dnerqj8Vzj3z9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #35678 |
On 7/3/2021 8:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 19:59:49 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2021 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the halting problem there exists TM/input pairs such that TM X
>>>> cannot return the correct halt status to input I.
>>>
>>> That's badly worded but you have the gist of it. No TM computes the
>>> halting function because, for every TM, there is an infinity of
>>> inputs which are incorrectly accepted or rejected by that TM.
>>>
>>> Could you move on now?
>>>
>>>> Since there is no existing term-of-the-art for this case I will
>>>> call it an incorrect question.
>>>
>>> That's an odd thing to call it, but if it makes you happy, go ahead.
>>> Other people just call these the cases where X(I) does not
>>> correspond to halts(I) -- colloquially, the cases X gets wrong.
>>>
>>>> An incorrect question Q is
>>>> (a) Question / decision problem Q
>>>> (b) Posed to (person / TM) X
>>>> (c) About (subject matter / input) I
>>>> (d) Such that the answer A to Q posed to X about I has no
>>>> correct value from the set of {yes,no} / {true,false}
>>>
>>>> All undecidable decision problems are only "undecidable" because
>>>> they are based on incorrect questions.
>>>
>>> But, as you know, every instance of the halting problem has a
>>> correct yea/no answer.
>>
>> When we ask a guy that has beaten his wife:
>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>> One of {yes, no} is the correct answer.
>>
>> When we ask a guy that has never been married:
>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>> Neither of {yes, no} is the correct answer.
>
> Do you extract these really really bad analogies from your ass?
It is not any kind of analogy at all
The logical law of polar questions
Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-04 17:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Could H correctly decide that P never halts? [ incorrect question ] |
| Message-ID | <87a6n2c9kg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #35675 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/3/2021 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> In the halting problem there exists TM/input pairs such that TM X >>> cannot return the correct halt status to input I. >> That's badly worded but you have the gist of it. No TM computes the >> halting function because, for every TM, there is an infinity of inputs >> which are incorrectly accepted or rejected by that TM. >> Could you move on now? I must conclude that you accept that no TM computes the halting function. It would be intellectual cowardice of the first order to pass over this point if you did not agree. > When we ask H what return value to P is the correct halt status of > P(P) neither true nor false are the correct return value. The halting problem is not defined relative to any one failed partial decider. For H(P,P) to be correct one of H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) does not halt, or H(P,P) != 0 and P(P) halts must be the case. Repeat after me: every instance of the halting problem has a correct yes/no answer. The correct answer is yes for those instances that represent halting computations and false otherwise. The fact that P(P) halts because H(P,P) == 0 does make 0 the correct answer. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 19:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zgv3e010.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #35648 |
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes: > In article <hKudnUFx1oVw4n39nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > >> Conclusion(3) From the above true premises it necessarily follows that >> simulating halt decider H correctly reports that its input: (P,P) never >> halts. > > Number theory conjectures can be written as Turing Machines... He got you! PO has run into a dead-end in comp.theory, so he needs new people to talk to him. When this happens he goes fishing in other groups to find people he can go over all the old ground with. This same point has been made many times to PO in the last twenty years. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eoydnfYLWffzLn39nZ2dnUU7-L2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #35651 |
On 7/3/2021 1:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In article <hKudnUFx1oVw4n39nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Conclusion(3) From the above true premises it necessarily follows that
>>> simulating halt decider H correctly reports that its input: (P,P) never
>>> halts.
>>
>> Number theory conjectures can be written as Turing Machines...
>
> He got you! PO has run into a dead-end in comp.theory, so he needs new
> people to talk to him. When this happens he goes fishing in other
> groups to find people he can go over all the old ground with.
>
> This same point has been made many times to PO in the last twenty
> years.
>
The Goldbach conjecture is not undecidable in the conventional sense in
that we know that both {Yes and No} are the wrong answer. The Goldbach
conjecture is undecided and not undecidable.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 22:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-BA9FE8.22372303072021@reader.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #35648 |
In article <87tulbdvl4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> It might be topical, but C without big nums is not very useful for this
> sort of thing!
Oh?
By the way, because of the sieve array is accessed as file of
Integer, it can be kept on disc, so the memory limit can be disc
size and the longest string memory can hold.
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef char *Integer, **Integers;
typedef size_t integer;
static Integer number (integer n);
static Integer numbercopy (Integer n);
static Integer increment (Integer n);
static bool decrementAndIfZero (Integer n);
static bool AlessthanB (Integer A, Integer B);
static bool AequalsBplusC (Integer A, Integer B, Integer C);
static Integers sieve = 0;
static long mp = 0, np = 0;
static Integer eratosthenes (Integer current, Integer limit) {
if (!sieve) {
sieve = malloc(4*sizeof(Integer)); mp = 4; np = 2;
sieve[0] = number(2);
sieve[1] = number(2);
sieve[2] = 0;
if (current) free(current);
current = number(3);
}
while (AlessthanB(current, limit)) {
bool isprime = true; Integers P = sieve;
for (; *P; ++P) {
Integer prime = *P++;
Integer counter = *P;
if (decrementAndIfZero(counter)) {
free(counter);
*P = counter = numbercopy(prime);
isprime = false;
}
}
if (isprime) {
while (np+3>=mp)
` sieve = realloc(sieve, (mp*=2)*sizeof(Integer));
sieve[np++] = numbercopy(current);
sieve[np++] = numbercopy(current);
sieve[np] = 0;
}
current = increment(current);
}
return current;
}
static void G (void) {
Integer n = number(4);
Integer current = eratosthenes(0, n);
integer i = 0, j = 0;
for (;;)
if (!AlessthanB(sieve[i], n)) {
i = 0; j += 2;
if (!AlessthanB(sieve[j], n)) {
printf("%s counterexample\n", n);
return;
}
}else if (AequalsBplusC(n, sieve[i], sieve[j])) {
printf("%s = %s+%s\n", n, sieve[i], sieve[j]);
n = increment(increment(n));
current = eratosthenes(current, n);
i = j = 0;
}else
i += 2;
}
int main (int argc, Integer *argv) {
G(); return 0;
}
static Integer number (integer n) {
Integer c = 0; asprintf(&c,"%ld",(long)n); return c;
}
static Integer numbercopy (Integer n) {
return strcpy(malloc(strlen(n)+1), n);
}
static Integer increment (Integer n) {
Integer digit = n+strlen(n); bool carry = true;
while (carry) {
if (digit==n) {
Integer n1 = malloc(1+strlen(n)+1);
*n1 = '1'; strcpy(n1+1,n); free(n);
carry = false; n = n1;
}else if (*--digit=='9') {
*digit = '0';
carry = true;
}else {
*digit += 1;
carry = false;
}
}
return n;
}
static bool decrementAndIfZero (Integer n) {
Integer digit = n+strlen(n); bool borrow = true;
bool zero = true;
while (borrow) {
if (digit==n) {
fprintf(stderr,"Attempted to decrement zero.\n");
exit(1);
}else if (*--digit=='0') {
*digit = '9';
borrow = true;
}else {
*digit -= 1;
borrow = false;
}
}
while (*n && zero) zero = *n++=='0';
return zero;
}
static bool AlessthanB (Integer A, Integer B) {
if (!A || !B) return false;
Integer a = A+strlen(A), b = B+strlen(B);
bool lt = false;
while (a>A || b>B) {
int adigit = a>A ? *--a : '0';
int bdigit = b>B ? *--b : '0';
if (adigit<bdigit) lt = true;
else if (adigit>bdigit) lt = false;
}
return lt;
}
static bool AequalsBplusC (Integer A, Integer B, Integer C) {
Integer a = A+strlen(A), b = B+strlen(B), c = C+strlen(C);
bool eq = true; int carry = 0;
while (eq && (a>A || b>B || c>C || carry)) {
int adigit = a>A ? *--a-'0' : 0;
int bdigit = b>B ? *--b-'0' : 0;
int cdigit = c>C ? *--c-'0' : 0;
int d = bdigit+cdigit+carry;
carry = d>=10; if (carry) d -= 10;
eq = adigit==d;
}
return eq;
}
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-04 14:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87im1qcjam.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #35689 |
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes: > In article <87tulbdvl4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>, > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >> It might be topical, but C without big nums is not very useful for this >> sort of thing! > > Oh? I'm not sure what your point is. A few more words might help. The code you included used what I call big nums. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web