Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36063 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-19 13:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 154 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 12:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:12 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:06 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:23 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:32 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:38 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:59 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:14 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:35 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:12 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:39 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:52 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:58 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 23:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 17:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 15:12 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:47 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 18:30 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 02:56 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:18 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 03:34 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:45 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:34 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:55 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 21:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:32 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:39 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:23 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-11 10:43 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:19 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 10:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 18:20 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 12:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 19:18 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:09 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:44 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 14:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 13:36 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 08:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:04 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 10:27 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:18 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:01 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:41 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-20 17:16 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 14:41 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:55 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 09:40 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 16:49 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 08:44 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:22 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 14:13 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 06:19 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-12 17:33 +0200
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:51 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:27 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:15 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:16 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:56 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 10:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 22:03 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 10:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:07 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:45 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 09:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 21:48 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-15 03:43 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-15 07:54 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:09 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:24 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 13:27 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 21:08 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-12 21:24 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:53 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 22:59 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:32 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 23:31 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 03:51 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:38 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 15:24 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 16:22 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 18:48 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] (Fixing Tarski's nonsense ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:29 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:14 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 20:40 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:58 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 21:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 22:39 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 23:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:41 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 07:23 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-12 23:40 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 18:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 22:57 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:21 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-13 11:49 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:45 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 21:10 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:03 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 16:52 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:37 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:04 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [unknown to be undecidable] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 09:21 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:42 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 16:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 04:39 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ "I agree with Olcott" ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 11:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-11 22:14 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:10 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:09 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:24 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:59 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:07 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 20:17 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:40 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 14:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:40 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:52 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 13:25 -0700
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 17:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] |
| Message-ID | <6I6dndjgovrwhHP9nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36262 |
On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>
>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
>>>> //
>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>> //
>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>
>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
>>>> undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
>>> not count as halting.
>> What are you talking about?
>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>
> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> "undecidable" program...
>
All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
> --
> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 16:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] |
| Message-ID | <e2fef60b-44f3-483f-8704-10638e79bb67n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36264 |
On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
> >>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
> >>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
> >>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
> >>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
> >>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
> >>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> >>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> >>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
> >>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
> >>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
> >>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
> >>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
> >>>>>>> incorrect question.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
> >>>>>> does not care what it means.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> >>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
> >>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
> >>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
> >>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
> >>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
> >>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
> >>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
> >>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
> >>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> >>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> >>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> >>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
> >>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> >>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> >>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
> >>>>
> >>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
> >>>> //
> >>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
> >>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
> >>>> //
> >>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
> >>>>
> >>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
> >>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
> >>>> undecidable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your H is a false teller.
> >>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
> >>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
> >>> not count as halting.
> >> What are you talking about?
> >> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
> >> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
> >> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
> >> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >
> > I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> > It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> > can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> > "undecidable" program...
> >
> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
// [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
//
// [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
// false: otherwise
//
D(Prog p);
According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
--
Copyright 2021 WIJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 18:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] |
| Message-ID | <y9adnceGko2ju3P9nZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36267 |
On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
>>>>>> //
>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>>>> //
>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
>>>>> not count as halting.
>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>>>
>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
>>> "undecidable" program...
>>>
>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
>
> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
>
> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
> //
> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
> // false: otherwise
> //
> D(Prog p);
>
> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
>
> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
>
>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
>
> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
>
> --
> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>
What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 17:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] |
| Message-ID | <09cf1157-4b93-4716-8d5f-804aed00ddd5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36268 |
On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
> >>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> >>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
> >>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
> >>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
> >>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
> >>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
> >>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
> >>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
> >>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
> >>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
> >>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
> >>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
> >>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
> >>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
> >>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> >>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> >>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> >>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> >>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> >>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
> >>>>>> //
> >>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
> >>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
> >>>>>> //
> >>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
> >>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
> >>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
> >>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
> >>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
> >>>>> not count as halting.
> >>>> What are you talking about?
> >>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
> >>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
> >>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
> >>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >>>
> >>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> >>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> >>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> >>> "undecidable" program...
> >>>
> >> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
> >
> > How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
> >
> > // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
> > //
> > // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
> > // false: otherwise
> > //
> > D(Prog p);
> >
> > According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
> > to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
> >
> > I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
> >
> >> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
> >> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
> >
> > Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
> >
> > --
> > Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >
> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
Do you really honestly want to talk about your H(P,P) or the subject of your paper
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
Admitting you are utterly wrong is the quick answer for all of us. Under my GUA
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
Admit it and start all over again.
--
Copyright 2021 WIJ
"If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 19:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] |
| Message-ID | <v7OdnXUa2diWsHP9nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36270 |
On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
>>>>>>> not count as halting.
>>>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
>>>>> "undecidable" program...
>>>>>
>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
>>>
>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
>>>
>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
>>> //
>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
>>> // false: otherwise
>>> //
>>> D(Prog p);
>>>
>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
>>>
>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
>>>
>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
>>>
>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>
>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
>
> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
What is the correct answer to the question:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
posed to a many that has never been married?
All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
incorrect questions.
> Do you really honestly want to talk about your H(P,P) or the subject of your paper
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
> Admitting you are utterly wrong is the quick answer for all of us. Under my GUA
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
> Admit it and start all over again.
>
> --
> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 19:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] (Fixing Tarski's nonsense ) |
| Message-ID | <y6udnTRukttCsnP9nZ2dnUU7-YGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36271 |
On 7/13/2021 7:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a
>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch
>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch
>>>>>>>>>>>> error is also an
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end.
>>>>>>>>>>> A total decision function
>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value
>>>>>>>>>>>> because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict the
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error
>>>>>>>>>>>> that Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the
>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a,
>>>>>>>>> will halt or not,
>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy,
>>>>>>>>> thus, H is
>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended.
>>>>>>>> This does
>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is
>>>>>>> qualified as a
>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of
>>>>>>> dwarfs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer
>>>>>> oscillates and
>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be
>>>>>> call an
>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
>>>>>>
>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
>>>>
>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
>>>>
>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
>>>> //
>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
>>>> // false: otherwise
>>>> //
>>>> D(Prog p);
>>>>
>>>> According to GUA
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is
>>>> undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
>>>>
>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
>>>>
>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>
>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
>>
>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
>
> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
>
> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
>
> What is the correct answer to the question:
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> posed to a many that has never been married?
>
> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
> incorrect questions.
>
>> Do you really honestly want to talk about your H(P,P) or the subject
>> of your paper
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
This is circular, thus nonsense:
'snow is white' is true if, and only if, snow is white
This is not circular:
"snow is white" ↔ has_physical_property(snow, color(white))
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 18:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] |
| Message-ID | <7ddc5f5a-fcb4-4169-8dd4-6e6b6f20d36fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36271 |
On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
> >>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
> >>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
> >>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
> >>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
> >>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
> >>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
> >>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
> >>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
> >>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
> >>>>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
> >>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
> >>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
> >>>>>>> not count as halting.
> >>>>>> What are you talking about?
> >>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
> >>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
> >>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
> >>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> >>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> >>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> >>>>> "undecidable" program...
> >>>>>
> >>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
> >>>
> >>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
> >>>
> >>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
> >>> //
> >>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
> >>> // false: otherwise
> >>> //
> >>> D(Prog p);
> >>>
> >>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
> >>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
> >>>
> >>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
> >>>
> >>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
> >>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
> >>>
> >>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>
> >> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
> >
> > I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
failure you dare not to face?
> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
> What is the correct answer to the question:
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> posed to a many that has never been married?
Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
failure you dare not to face?
> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
> incorrect questions.
It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
failure you dare not to face?
--
Copyright 2021 WIJ
"If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 20:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <1I-dnaqQHMLk3XP9nZ2dnUU7-UHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36277 |
On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
>>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
>>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
>>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
>>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
>>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
>>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
>>>>>
>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
>>>>> //
>>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
>>>>> // false: otherwise
>>>>> //
>>>>> D(Prog p);
>>>>>
>>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
>>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
>>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>
>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
>>>
>>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
>> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
>
> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> failure you dare not to face?
>
>> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
>> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
>
> GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
>
>> What is the correct answer to the question:
>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>> posed to a many that has never been married?
>
> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> failure you dare not to face?
>
>> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
>> incorrect questions.
>
> It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
>
> In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> failure you dare not to face?
>
Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
years)
Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
because within the full context of the question {where the input does
the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
when posed to this halt decider.
> --
> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 18:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <dc7fdd6b-6833-4de5-baa5-4ed56fac9855n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36278 |
On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 09:40:16 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
> >>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
> >>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
> >>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
> >>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
> >>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
> >>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
> >>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
> >>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
> >>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
> >>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
> >>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
> >>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
> >>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> >>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> >>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> >>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>> //
> >>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>> // false: otherwise
> >>>>> //
> >>>>> D(Prog p);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
> >>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
> >>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>
> >>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
> >>>
> >>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
> >> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
> >
> > Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> > failure you dare not to face?
> >
> >> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
> >> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
> >
> > GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
> >
> >> What is the correct answer to the question:
> >> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >> posed to a many that has never been married?
> >
> > Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> > failure you dare not to face?
> >
> >> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
> >> incorrect questions.
> >
> > It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
> >
> > In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
> > Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> > failure you dare not to face?
> >
> Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
> ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
> years)
>
> Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
> because within the full context of the question {where the input does
> the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
> are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
> when posed to this halt decider.
Halt decider H is intended a total function. All input in the problem domain are valid.
There is no such thing as 'incorrect input' in the problem domain.
Otherwise, you need to define 'incorrect input', but then, this is another
undecidable problem. I.e. you can not define it.
--
Copyright 2021 WIJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 21:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <672dnSguKqWy2nP9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36281 |
On 7/13/2021 8:58 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 09:40:16 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
>>>>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
>>>>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>>>>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
>>>>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
>>>>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
>>>>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
>>>>>>> // false: otherwise
>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>> D(Prog p);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
>>>>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
>>>>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
>>>> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
>>>
>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>
>>>> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
>>>> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
>>>
>>> GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
>>>
>>>> What is the correct answer to the question:
>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>> posed to a many that has never been married?
>>>
>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>
>>>> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
>>>> incorrect questions.
>>>
>>> It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
>>>
>>> In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>
>> Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
>> ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
>> years)
>>
>> Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
>> because within the full context of the question {where the input does
>> the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
>> are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
>> when posed to this halt decider.
>
> Halt decider H is intended a total function. All input in the problem domain are valid.
> There is no such thing as 'incorrect input' in the problem domain.
Yes that is the key universal misconception that only Flibble and I
understand to be a misconception.
When we comprehend that every yes/no question having no possible correct
yes/no answer only includes incorrect questions such as asking a man
that has never been married: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Then we understand that this same analytical framework also applies to
decision problems such that a TM/input pair is defined such that both
true/false are the wrong answer.
> Otherwise, you need to define 'incorrect input', but then, this is another
> undecidable problem. I.e. you can not define it.
>
> --
> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 19:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <0dbfee77-aa9a-49dd-a8f5-8db3024e9b36n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36283 |
On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 10:08:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 8:58 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 09:40:16 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
> >>>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
> >>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
> >>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
> >>>>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
> >>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
> >>>>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
> >>>>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
> >>>>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> >>>>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> >>>>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> >>>>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>>>> // false: otherwise
> >>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>> D(Prog p);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
> >>>>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
> >>>>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
> >>>> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
> >>>
> >>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>
> >>>> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
> >>>> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
> >>>
> >>> GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
> >>>
> >>>> What is the correct answer to the question:
> >>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >>>> posed to a many that has never been married?
> >>>
> >>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>
> >>>> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
> >>>> incorrect questions.
> >>>
> >>> It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
> >>>
> >>> In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
> >>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>
> >> Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
> >> ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
> >> years)
> >>
> >> Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
> >> because within the full context of the question {where the input does
> >> the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
> >> are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
> >> when posed to this halt decider.
> >
> > Halt decider H is intended a total function. All input in the problem domain are valid.
> > There is no such thing as 'incorrect input' in the problem domain.
> Yes that is the key universal misconception that only Flibble and I
> understand to be a misconception.
>
What precisely the misconception are you referring to?
> When we comprehend that every yes/no question having no possible correct
> yes/no answer only includes incorrect questions such as asking a man
> that has never been married: Have you stopped beating your wife?
>
> Then we understand that this same analytical framework also applies to
> decision problems such that a TM/input pair is defined such that both
> true/false are the wrong answer.
> > Otherwise, you need to define 'incorrect input', but then, this is another
> > undecidable problem. I.e. you can not define it.
> >
> > --
> > Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 22:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <EdudnXxYT6H-wXP9nZ2dnUU7-RXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36287 |
On 7/13/2021 9:52 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 10:08:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 8:58 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 09:40:16 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
>>>>>>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
>>>>>>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise
>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>> D(Prog p);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
>>>>>>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
>>>>>> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
>>>>>> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
>>>>>
>>>>> GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the correct answer to the question:
>>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>>> posed to a many that has never been married?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>>>
>>>>>> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
>>>>>> incorrect questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>>>
>>>> Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
>>>> ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
>>>> years)
>>>>
>>>> Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
>>>> because within the full context of the question {where the input does
>>>> the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
>>>> are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
>>>> when posed to this halt decider.
>>>
>>> Halt decider H is intended a total function. All input in the problem domain are valid.
>>> There is no such thing as 'incorrect input' in the problem domain.
>> Yes that is the key universal misconception that only Flibble and I
>> understand to be a misconception.
>>
>
> What precisely the misconception are you referring to?
I explain that in the past that you skipped below:
>> When we comprehend that every yes/no question having no possible correct
>> yes/no answer only includes incorrect questions such as asking a man
>> that has never been married: Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>
>> Then we understand that this same analytical framework also applies to
>> decision problems such that a TM/input pair is defined such that both
>> true/false are the wrong answer.
"Undecidable" TM/input pairs are only "undecidable" because they are
incorrect.
>>> Otherwise, you need to define 'incorrect input', but then, this is another
>>> undecidable problem. I.e. you can not define it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 21:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <472dbd98-1791-4aca-adbd-6091316e3b88n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36291 |
On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 11:39:25 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 9:52 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 10:08:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2021 8:58 PM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 09:40:16 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> >>>>>>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> >>>>>>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> >>>>>>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise
> >>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>> D(Prog p);
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
> >>>>>>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
> >>>>>>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
> >>>>>> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>>>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
> >>>>>> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What is the correct answer to the question:
> >>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >>>>>> posed to a many that has never been married?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>>>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
> >>>>>> incorrect questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
> >>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>>>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
> >>>> ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
> >>>> years)
> >>>>
> >>>> Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
> >>>> because within the full context of the question {where the input does
> >>>> the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
> >>>> are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
> >>>> when posed to this halt decider.
> >>>
> >>> Halt decider H is intended a total function. All input in the problem domain are valid.
> >>> There is no such thing as 'incorrect input' in the problem domain.
> >> Yes that is the key universal misconception that only Flibble and I
> >> understand to be a misconception.
> >>
> >
> > What precisely the misconception are you referring to?
> I explain that in the past that you skipped below:
> >> When we comprehend that every yes/no question having no possible correct
> >> yes/no answer only includes incorrect questions such as asking a man
> >> that has never been married: Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >>
> >> Then we understand that this same analytical framework also applies to
> >> decision problems such that a TM/input pair is defined such that both
> >> true/false are the wrong answer.
> "Undecidable" TM/input pairs are only "undecidable" because they are
> incorrect.
Why "undecidable" is incorrect?
With my GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, one need
not to define 'incorrect input'. I think no one can refute GUA.
--
Copyright 2021 WIJ
"If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 23:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <7d2dnfm36K7s-HP9nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36292 |
On 7/13/2021 11:00 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 11:39:25 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 9:52 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 10:08:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2021 8:58 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 09:40:16 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
>>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>> D(Prog p);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
>>>>>>>>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
>>>>>>>> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
>>>>>>>> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the correct answer to the question:
>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>>>>> posed to a many that has never been married?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
>>>>>>>> incorrect questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
>>>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
>>>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
>>>>>> ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
>>>>>> years)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
>>>>>> because within the full context of the question {where the input does
>>>>>> the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
>>>>>> are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
>>>>>> when posed to this halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halt decider H is intended a total function. All input in the problem domain are valid.
>>>>> There is no such thing as 'incorrect input' in the problem domain.
>>>> Yes that is the key universal misconception that only Flibble and I
>>>> understand to be a misconception.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What precisely the misconception are you referring to?
>> I explain that in the past that you skipped below:
>>>> When we comprehend that every yes/no question having no possible correct
>>>> yes/no answer only includes incorrect questions such as asking a man
>>>> that has never been married: Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>
>>>> Then we understand that this same analytical framework also applies to
>>>> decision problems such that a TM/input pair is defined such that both
>>>> true/false are the wrong answer.
>> "Undecidable" TM/input pairs are only "undecidable" because they are
>> incorrect.
>
> Why "undecidable" is incorrect?
The same reason that a yes/no question having no correct yes/no answer
is incorrect.
> With my GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, one need
> not to define 'incorrect input'. I think no one can refute GUA.
>
The above link is only Sipser:
http://www.liarparadox.org/Sipser_165_167.pdf
> --
> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 21:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) |
| Message-ID | <37ad8792-ac5b-4edf-94b8-96ee1e5ea4e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36293 |
On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 12:18:00 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 11:00 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 11:39:25 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2021 9:52 PM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 10:08:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/13/2021 8:58 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 09:40:16 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/13/2021 8:14 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 08:17:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 7:06 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 07:48:22 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:22 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 06:53:40 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:24 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 00:13:39 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:35:21 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 10:23 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 23:01:29 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 22:00:44 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 12:31:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decidability unknown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have provided traces that prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nop, H is a total function, every input is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is true then the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is very obvious that the above question has a type mismatch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error then every input to a TM that has a type mismatch error is also an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool Add(int X, int Y); // Is 2 + 3 true or false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever program will be a string of 0's and 1's in the end. A total decision function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not care what it means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is restricted to {true,false} because it is fundamental of All functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, computation theory needs only address decision functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer set can be extended to {true,false,neither}, but the result is the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... "undecidable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the above function has no correct return value because of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type mismatch error any input having behavior that contradict the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of the halt decider is also incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, your H is not a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error that Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to as erroneous.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory liar paradox.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need 'fact'. What does it have anything to do with the halting problem?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any yes/no question lacks a correct yes/no answer this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a TM/input pair to a decision problem lacks a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return value the TM/input pair is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem is a valid question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether the function %f, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: f(a) will return
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise (f(a) will not return)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool H(Func f, Arg a);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But according to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H tries to decide the (dynamic) property of f that f can defy, thus, H is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is a false teller.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) never halts. If H(P,P) ever stops running this is because its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation has had its execution suspended. This does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not count as halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It read to me your H is a telepathy program. If so, your H is qualified as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable program. This is the correct answer accepted by GUA, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a H does not conform to the spec. of a halting decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote it too fast, correction to previous reply:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It read to me that your H is a telepathic program whose answer oscillates and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can not output a fixed answer. According to GUA, such a H can be call an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidable" program...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable inputs are incorrect inputs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you compute "All undecidable inputs"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> // [Syn] Decide whether or not $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>> // [Ret] true: $f is a undecidable input
> >>>>>>>>>>> // false: otherwise
> >>>>>>>>>>> //
> >>>>>>>>>>> D(Prog p);
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> According to GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, D tries
> >>>>>>>>>>> to decide the (dynamic) property of p that p can defy, thus, D is undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I am afraid you are saying something you do not really understand.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Tarski undefinability theorem only exists on the basis of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> impossibility of proving that a self-contradictory sentence is true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tarski undefinability theorem or the sort are sub-instances of GUA.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 WIJ
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)? is equally undecidable.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I can provide a bunch answers to the irrelevant question. But
> >>>>>>>> What is the correct (yes or no) answer to the question What time is it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What is the correct halt status that a TM can return to an input that
> >>>>>>>> does the opposite of whatever the decider decides?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What is the correct answer to the question:
> >>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >>>>>>>> posed to a many that has never been married?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All three examples have no correct answer only because they are
> >>>>>>>> incorrect questions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is YOU making them 'incorrect questions' to yourself.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In computation theory, TM can only halt or not halt.
> >>>>>>> Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions? Is it the way to evade your
> >>>>>>> failure you dare not to face?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Although a TM either halts or does not halt when we do not freaking
> >>>>>> ignore the context of this question (As dishonest Ben has done for 15
> >>>>>> years)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then the halt decider cannot "decide" between true and false only
> >>>>>> because within the full context of the question {where the input does
> >>>>>> the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides} both True and False
> >>>>>> are the wrong answer, thus proving that the question itself is incorrect
> >>>>>> when posed to this halt decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Halt decider H is intended a total function. All input in the problem domain are valid.
> >>>>> There is no such thing as 'incorrect input' in the problem domain.
> >>>> Yes that is the key universal misconception that only Flibble and I
> >>>> understand to be a misconception.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What precisely the misconception are you referring to?
> >> I explain that in the past that you skipped below:
> >>>> When we comprehend that every yes/no question having no possible correct
> >>>> yes/no answer only includes incorrect questions such as asking a man
> >>>> that has never been married: Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >>>>
> >>>> Then we understand that this same analytical framework also applies to
> >>>> decision problems such that a TM/input pair is defined such that both
> >>>> true/false are the wrong answer.
> >> "Undecidable" TM/input pairs are only "undecidable" because they are
> >> incorrect.
> >
> > Why "undecidable" is incorrect?
> The same reason that a yes/no question having no correct yes/no answer
> is incorrect.
> > With my GUA https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk, one need
> > not to define 'incorrect input'. I think no one can refute GUA.
> >
> The above link is only Sipser:
> http://www.liarparadox.org/Sipser_165_167.pdf
> > --
> > Copyright 2021 WIJ
> > "If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
> >
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein
Your proof are just 'self-talk'. My GUA is REPRODUCIBLE, VERIFIABLE.
See https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/7dn3oEmo4Is
--
Copyright 2021 WIJ
"If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 07:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <HtgHI.21311$VU3.13103@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #36230 |
On 7/12/21 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/12/2021 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/12/21 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/12/2021 4:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100
>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
>>>>>
>>>>> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>>>> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey
>>>>> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on?
>>>>> [Turing 1937]?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your
>>>> pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be
>>>> the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its
>>>> attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's
>>>> nothing that can't be routinely patched up.)
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>
>>> I refuted Linz as well. When the whole class of all conventional HP
>>> proofs have been refuted, then does the halting problem become
>>> decidability unknown?
>>>
>>
>> You have NOT refuted Linz as your claimed correct answer is not correct.
>> Since it is shown tha tH^(H^) when run as an independent machine does
>> reach its final HALT state, and thus it IS a Halting Turing Machine by
>> definition. Even YOU have admitted that H^(H^) will come to this Halt
>> and have provided traces that prove it.
>>
>> You just want to change the definition so you can work on POOP.
>>
>
> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question.
>
> The answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct
> answer of “neither” making the question itself incorrect.
>
> The TM / input pairs that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable
> have the same pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the
> self-contradictory liar paradox.
>
>
Again, you have the wrong question. The question is will P(I) come to a
halt or not in a finite number of steps.
ALL machines will either Halt or they will not, 'neither' is not a
possible answer.
The is a possibility of I don't know, because there do exist some
machines that we can not prove if they halt or not, but that is a
knowledge limit, not a limit on the answer, for those machines the
answer is STILL, one of Halting or Non-Halting.
The fact that when you ask this other question to design H, you get the
'neither' conclusion is proof that you can not make the
Turing Machine you are trying to make.
Note, we can't ask that actual Halting Question until we actually have
fixed the machine, and since the TEMPLATE ^ depends on the Halting
decider, until we actually design that decider, we can't ask about its
behavior.
You question, What should H return for H^(H^) is a question in the
design process for H, as once H is fully designed, that question doesn't
make sense because H's answer will be what it is designed to do. The
paradox you run into isn't a problem with the actual Halting Problem but
just shows that we can't make a machine that will correctly answer a
machine built from it by this template, which proves that the Halting
Problem is not universally decidable.
Perhaps you problem is that your mind just can;t keep these details in
order, as you argument actually just confirms the theory you are trying
to disprove.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-13 00:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a6mruohy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36200 |
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > On 12/07/2021 21:24, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100 >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: >> >>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude: >> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence >> [Hitchens]. Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey >> 1965] is in error. Which proof are you basing this assertion on? >> [Turing 1937]? >> /Flibble >> > > There are several proofs that halting is not decideable. Take your > pick. The obvious choice given PO's claims over many years would be > the Linz proof, or similar. (The Linz proof is slightly sloppy in its > attention to detail, as it's not aimed at mathematicians, but that's > nothing that can't be routinely patched up.) In fairness to Linz, he presents that proof for historical interest. His "actual" proof comes one page after the last page that PO appears to have read. It's a corollary of theorem 11.5 from the previous chapter that establishes that there are recursively enumerable languages that are not recursive. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-12 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fswjupeu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36192 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100 > Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > >> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude: > > Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence > [Hitchens]. I suspect he knew (and appreciated) the irony of his making such an assertion without any evidence. > Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey > 1965] is in error. I don't think any proper proof is based on such code sketches. PO is reduced to clumsy sentences and borrowed code sketches, but that's because he has no access to any other models of computation. And he's not proving anything either, despite his claims to the contrary. > Which proof are you basing this assertion on? I doubt anyone but a novice could answer that. Do I rely on the argument using register machines, shown to me when I was an undergraduate? I did when I was a novice. Do I rely on Davis? Linz's actual proof (rather than the one PO has been confused by) as a corollary to the proof that there exists a recursively enumerable languaga that is not recursive is pretty simple. There are least three others in book at arms length from me right now. I really could not say I rely on any one of these. Which do you rely on? > [Turing 1937]? As far as I know, Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem. You can derive one from the results in that seminal paper, but that's not quite the same thing. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-12 18:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MdidnckafbVIU3H9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36206 |
On 7/12/2021 5:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes: > >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:08:02 +0100 >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: >> >>> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude: >> >> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence >> [Hitchens]. > > I suspect he knew (and appreciated) the irony of his making such an > assertion without any evidence. > >> Any proof predicated on a misunderstanding of [Strachey >> 1965] is in error. > > I don't think any proper proof is based on such code sketches. PO is > reduced to clumsy sentences and borrowed code sketches, but that's > because he has no access to any other models of computation. And he's > not proving anything either, despite his claims to the contrary. > >> Which proof are you basing this assertion on? > > I doubt anyone but a novice could answer that. Do I rely on the > argument using register machines, shown to me when I was an > undergraduate? I did when I was a novice. Do I rely on Davis? Linz's > actual proof (rather than the one PO has been confused by) as a > corollary to the proof that there exists a recursively enumerable > languaga that is not recursive is pretty simple. There are least three > others in book at arms length from me right now. I really could not say > I rely on any one of these. > At first glance its seems that Linz theorem 11.3 might be the same sort of nonsense as the Tarski undefinability theorem that essentially "proves" that some expressions of language are true and unprovable. The Tarski proof is fundamentally anchored in the liar paradox: http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf Even after thousands of years people still do not understand that self contradictory expressions of language do not map to a Boolean value only because they are erroneous. the symbol 'Pr' which denotes the class of all provable sentences of the theory under consideration ... we can construct a sentence x of the science in question which satisfies the following condition: it is not true that x ∉ Pr if and only if p or in equivalent formulation: (1) x ∉ Pr if and only if p where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x In other words this: ¬Pr(p) ↔ p was derived from this ¬Tr(p) ↔ p where Pr means Provable() and Tr means True() http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf > Which do you rely on? > >> [Turing 1937]? > > As far as I know, Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem. > You can derive one from the results in that seminal paper, but that's > not quite the same thing. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-12 22:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <scids1$jkg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36191 |
On 12/07/2021 21:08, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 12/07/2021 20:27, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 7/12/2021 7:19 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
[I wrote:]
>>>> It's undecidable whether an arbitrary TM is a BB; and the
>>>> BB function [ie, the "score" of a BB of given size] is uncomputable.
>>>> That's a stronger result than intractability. The proof that the
>>>> BB function is uncomputable is [reasonably] elementary, and does not
>>>> rely on the HP [or recursion]. If you had a "halting decider", then
>>>> you could find BBs by exhaustive [albeit intractable!] search and
>>>> thus compute the BB function; so there's yet another HP proof.
>>> If you have a busy beaver function and a simulating decider, the busy
>>> beaver function tells you how many times you need to step the decider
>>> before you can be certain it will never halt. So halting is decideable if
>>> busy beaver is decideable.
Yes [-ish, see below], but more interesting is "HP /un/decidable
if BB /un/computable".
>> I'm pretty sure that isn't correct.
Well, it should be "if the BB function is /computable/", otherwise
it's more-or-less correct. The "less" part is because you need a slightly
different version of BB, but there's no important distinction.
> It looks right, but you might be misunderstanding the point being made.
> The claim is:
> IF we had a BB function [meaning if BB function were computable]
> THEN that would imply Halting is decidable, by virtue of constructing
> a simple simulating based decider as outlined.
> In more detail, [...].
Yes.
> There was also a prior claim concerning BB "decideability", which was
> taken as meaning "whether a given TM is in CLASS_BB" is decideable.
> A TM in CLASS_BB is one that halts in the maximum number of steps
> possible for a TM with that number of states. [...]
> So "CLASS_BB decideable" ==> "BB function is computable" ==>
> "Halting is decideable".
Yes, but more importantly "BB function uncomputable" is known
separately and quite independently of the HP [there are simple proofs,
inc the original one by Rado and one given in the Wiki article on BBs
(which /also/ gives a proof depending on the blank tape HP, equivalent
to the standard HP)], so we deduce that "CLASS BB" is undecidable.
> But Halting is NOT decideable, therefore we conclude:
> a) BB function is NOT computable
> b) CLASS_BB is NOT decideable
Again, this is more important the other way round. A halt-
decider would be able to to be tweaked [as above] to compute the
BB function. But the BB function is uncomputable; so Halting is
not decidable. This proof is elementary, different from either
Linz proof, and non-recursive.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Ascher
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web