Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #50393 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-13 12:20 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-05-13 20:31 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:20 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 13:47 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 13:10 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 15:13 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:43 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:43 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:56 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:30 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:53 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:14 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:23 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:14 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:20 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:15 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 14:44 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 12:28 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 13:50 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 13:00 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:11 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 13:20 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:51 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-13 14:02 -0600
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:08 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:56 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:03 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:14 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:39 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:56 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:19 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:15 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:58 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:16 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:04 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:08 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:19 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:23 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:32 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 13:57 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:10 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 14:16 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:17 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 14:22 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:47 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 15:21 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:29 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 15:35 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:59 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:01 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 16:16 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:23 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 16:37 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:44 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 21:46 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:05 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:47 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 00:01 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:05 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 19:22 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:35 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:27 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 23:01 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 09:42 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 09:42 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 10:59 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 10:32 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 12:42 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 12:25 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 16:18 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 16:02 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 17:15 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 16:48 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 18:50 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 18:21 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 19:52 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 23:07 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-15 07:16 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-17 22:11 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 07:28 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 10:01 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 19:57 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 00:48 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:30 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 22:34 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 20:58 -0700
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 23:15 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 09:47 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 09:07 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 09:00 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 10:31 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 09:53 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 11:33 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 11:52 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 17:28 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 16:53 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 18:56 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 18:33 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-14 19:53 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-15 00:20 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 18:25 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-15 13:18 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-17 22:02 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 08:27 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 10:37 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 19:09 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 18:35 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 20:02 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-18 16:20 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 10:25 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 19:11 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-18 18:38 -0500
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-18 20:06 -0400
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-19 02:01 +0100
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 20:31 -0400
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] |
| Message-ID | <69mdnUr8GvhiV-P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50454 |
On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >>>>> >>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". >>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >>>>>> on the basis of the >>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>>>>> execution of P(P). >>>>> >>>>> False, as has been explained many times. >>>>> >>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>>>>> sequences of configurations. >>>>> >>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. >>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input >>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. >>>> >>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >>>> expectation incorrect. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>>>>> easily verifiable facts. >>>>> >>>>> So no time for yourself? >>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly >>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. >>> >>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). >> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. > > So you're saying the requirement can't be met? I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. > That means you agree with the conclusion of the halting problem proofs that there is no input you can give to H to correctly determine whether P(P) halts. > >> >> It is empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is correct on the basis of the >> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H. >> >> It is proven to be correct because the execution trace derived by H >> matches the behavior specified by the x86 source-code of P. > > You mean like how the execution trace of Ha3(N,5) matches the behavior specified by the x86 source code of N, proving by your logic that Ha3(N,5)==false is correct? > >> >> There really are no weasel words around this and any of these weasel >> words that you try to use only make you look very foolish. > > Yet more projection. When are you going to open that movie theater? I can't wait to see how nice the picture looks! > > >>> P(P) halts, therefore by definition the correct answer is 1. H(P,P)==0, therefore H is wrong. >>> >>>> >>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >>>> expectation incorrect. >>> >>> More projection. >> -- >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott >> >> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; >> Genius hits a target no one else can see." >> Arthur Schopenhauer -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 14:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very foolish ] |
| Message-ID | <f3cb84cb-d900-4e36-9b6e-b9a38f7903b6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50456 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >>>>>>>> actually specifies. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > >>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > >>>>> > >>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > >>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. > >>>>>> on the basis of the > >>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > >>>>>> execution of P(P). > >>>>> > >>>>> False, as has been explained many times. > >>>>> > >>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different > >>>>>> sequences of configurations. > >>>>> > >>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > >>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > >>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. > >>>> > >>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >>>> expectation incorrect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > >>>>>> easily verifiable facts. > >>>>> > >>>>> So no time for yourself? > >>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > >>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. > >>> > >>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). > >> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. > > > > So you're saying the requirement can't be met? > I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat > in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. So how are you going to spend your time now that you're no longer working on the halting problem? > > That means you agree with the conclusion of the halting problem proofs that there is no input you can give to H to correctly determine whether P(P) halts. > > > >> > >> It is empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is correct on the basis of the > >> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H. > >> > >> It is proven to be correct because the execution trace derived by H > >> matches the behavior specified by the x86 source-code of P. > > > > You mean like how the execution trace of Ha3(N,5) matches the behavior specified by the x86 source code of N, proving by your logic that Ha3(N,5)==false is correct? > > > >> > >> There really are no weasel words around this and any of these weasel > >> words that you try to use only make you look very foolish. > > > > Yet more projection. When are you going to open that movie theater? I can't wait to see how nice the picture looks! > > > > > >>> P(P) halts, therefore by definition the correct answer is 1. H(P,P)==0, therefore H is wrong. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >>>> expectation incorrect. > >>> > >>> More projection. > >> -- > >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott > >> > >> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > >> Genius hits a target no one else can see." > >> Arthur Schopenhauer > > > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott > > "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." > Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <FJWdnamuhYGbT-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50457 |
On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". >>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >>>>>>>> on the basis of the >>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>>>>>>> execution of P(P). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. >>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input >>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >>>>>> expectation incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So no time for yourself? >>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly >>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. >>>>> >>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). >>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. >>> >>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? >> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat >> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. > > Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is simply untrue. That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <1c9654bd-24ba-44a7-96b7-c017705f5135n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50468 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > >>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > >>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. > >>>>>>>> on the basis of the > >>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > >>>>>>>> execution of P(P). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different > >>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > >>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > >>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >>>>>> expectation incorrect. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > >>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So no time for yourself? > >>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > >>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. > >>>>> > >>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). > >>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. > >>> > >>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? > >> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat > >> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. > > > > Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. > Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a > definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the > liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is > simply untrue. > > That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) > directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that > requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs > conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria > is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: > The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that a halt decider as described by the halting problem doesn't fit the definition of a decider. Then at *most* we have a terminology problem. So let's create a new term: Determiner : A determiner maps its inputs to an accept or reject state based on the properties of non-inputs which the inputs represent as defined by a give problem statement So the halting problem is not actually talking about a halt *decider* but a halt *determiner*, as the latter allows strings to represent turing machines. So the proofs can be corrected by changing all references of "halt decider" to "halt determiner". So the halting problem actually states: A halt determiner is a turing machine H such that for any <M> which is a representation of a turing machine and w which is the input to that turing machine: H applied to <M> w reports halting if and only if M applied to w halts, and H applied to <M> w reports non-halting if and only if M applied to w does not halt So the problem still exists. Nothing else about the proof has changed. We've just corrected the terminology of what H is. And the proof is not refuted This also means that your H, which is a halt *decider*, has no bearing on the halting problem, since you usefully pointed out that the halting problem deals with halt determiners and not halt deciders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <WvqdnXceCIt_RuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50479 |
On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". >>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the >>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. >>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input >>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >>>>>>>> expectation incorrect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself? >>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly >>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). >>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. >>>>> >>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? >>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat >>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. >>> >>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. >> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a >> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the >> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is >> simply untrue. >> >> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) >> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that >> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs >> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria >> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. > > There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: > >> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning > Same post same author: How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 > Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 15:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <22966bf6-4f99-4437-954d-be967cf5116en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50481 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > >>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > >>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. > >>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the > >>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > >>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different > >>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > >>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > >>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >>>>>>>> expectation incorrect. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > >>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself? > >>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > >>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). > >>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? > >>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat > >>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. > >>> > >>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. > >> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a > >> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the > >> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is > >> simply untrue. > >> > >> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) > >> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that > >> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs > >> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria > >> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. > > > > There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: > > > >> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning > > > Same post same author: > > How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs > to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 > > This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 > > Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. > Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs. It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner. I also see that you deceptively removed the definition of a halt determiner and the description of how that fixes the proofs, so let me put that back: Determiner : A determiner maps its inputs to an accept or reject state based on the properties of non-inputs which the inputs represent as defined by a give problem statement So the halting problem is not actually talking about a halt *decider* but a halt *determiner*, as the latter allows strings to represent turing machines. So the proofs can be corrected by changing all references of "halt decider" to "halt determiner". So the halting problem actually states: A halt determiner is a turing machine H such that for any <M> which is a representation of a turing machine and w which is the input to that turing machine: H applied to <M> w reports halting if and only if M applied to w halts, and H applied to <M> w reports non-halting if and only if M applied to w does not halt So the problem still exists. Nothing else about the proof has changed. We've just corrected the terminology of what H is. And the proof is not refuted This also means that your H, which is a halt *decider*, has no bearing on the halting problem, since you usefully pointed out that the halting problem deals with halt determiners and not halt deciders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <JpBfK.4915$cQO2.3377@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #50482 |
On 5/13/22 6:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". >>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the >>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. >>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input >>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself? >>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly >>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). >>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? >>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat >>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. >>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a >>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the >>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is >>>> simply untrue. >>>> >>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) >>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that >>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs >>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria >>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. >>> >>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: >>> >>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning >>> >> Same post same author: >> >> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs >> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 >> >> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 >>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. >> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs. > > It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner. > > I also see that you deceptively removed the definition of a halt determiner and the description of how that fixes the proofs, so let me put that back: > > Determiner : A determiner maps its inputs to an accept or reject state based on the properties of non-inputs which the inputs represent as defined by a give problem statement > > So the halting problem is not actually talking about a halt *decider* but a halt *determiner*, as the latter allows strings to represent turing machines. So the proofs can be corrected by changing all references of "halt decider" to "halt determiner". > > So the halting problem actually states: > > A halt determiner is a turing machine H such that for any <M> which is a representation of a turing machine and w which is the input to that turing machine: > H applied to <M> w reports halting if and only if M applied to w halts, and > H applied to <M> w reports non-halting if and only if M applied to w does not halt > > So the problem still exists. Nothing else about the proof has changed. We've just corrected the terminology of what H is. And the proof is not refuted > > This also means that your H, which is a halt *decider*, has no bearing on the halting problem, since you usefully pointed out that the halting problem deals with halt determiners and not halt deciders. > And, actually we don't need to play with this nomenclature, as the actual statement is can we create a TURING MACHINE, that computes the result, the problem doesn't state it needs to be 'a decider'. Now, that machine doesn't actually need to be an actual 'Decider' as defined in Computation Theory, as the REAL definition for a decider is a Turing Machine that halts for all inputs (and as a consequence creates a mapping from input tape to output tape + Halt State. The Turing Machine looked at from the halting problem doesn't need to halt for ALL inputs, only all input that represent a Turing Machine applied to an input, so an input that doesn't actually represent that can generate a non-halting result. We use the term Halt Decider, because if we CAN find such a machine, then it will (basically) fit the definiton of a Halt Decider, as a machine that computes the mapping of the input tape (which represents the computation to be decided on) to an output (which indicates if that computation would halt or run forever). This matches the definition that an XX decider computes the mapping of the XX function. This is an important piece that PO omits from his definition, that to be a SOMETHING decider, your mapping needs to match the SOMETHING function, he is just claiming it compute SOME function, not the RIGHT function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <zaWdnfYK_d3-fuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50482 |
On 5/13/2022 5:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". >>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the >>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. >>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input >>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself? >>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly >>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). >>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? >>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat >>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. >>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a >>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the >>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is >>>> simply untrue. >>>> >>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) >>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that >>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs >>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria >>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. >>> >>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: >>> >>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning >>> >> Same post same author: >> >> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs >> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 >> >> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 >>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. >> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs. > > It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner. It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs) at all. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <e5032c85-3412-41bb-8544-25d46ac5f4a9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50491 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 5:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > >>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > >>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. > >>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > >>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different > >>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > >>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > >>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > >>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself? > >>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > >>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). > >>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? > >>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat > >>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. > >>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a > >>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the > >>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is > >>>> simply untrue. > >>>> > >>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) > >>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that > >>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs > >>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria > >>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. > >>> > >>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: > >>> > >>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning > >>> > >> Same post same author: > >> > >> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs > >> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 > >> > >> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 > >>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. > >> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs. > > > > It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner. > It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status > for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct > simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. Based on H being a halt *decider* as opposed to a halt *determiner*, and the latter is what everyone else is interested in. > > Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must > compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly > specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs) > at all. But as you've shown, a halt *decider* is not computing a pure function of its inputs because H1(P,P) and H(P,P) give different answers for the same input. And as you usefully pointed out, the halting problem doesn't deal in halt *deciders*. It deals in halt *determiners*. And unlike a halt decider H which can't even be asked if P(P) halts, we can ask a halt determiner that question but it still gets the wrong answer. So the halting problem proofs still stand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <jMCdnV6F4bESdeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50498 |
On 5/13/2022 6:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 5:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". >>>>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. >>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input >>>>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your >>>>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly >>>>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). >>>>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? >>>>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat >>>>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. >>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a >>>>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the >>>>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is >>>>>> simply untrue. >>>>>> >>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) >>>>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that >>>>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs >>>>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria >>>>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. >>>>> >>>>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: >>>>> >>>>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning >>>>> >>>> Same post same author: >>>> >>>> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs >>>> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 >>>> >>>> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 >>>>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. >>>> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs. >>> >>> It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner. >> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status >> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct >> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. > > Based on H being a halt *decider* as opposed to a halt *determiner*, and the latter is what everyone else is interested in. > >> >> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must >> compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly >> specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs) >> at all. > > But as you've shown, a halt *decider* is not computing a pure function of its inputs because H1(P,P) and H(P,P) give different answers for the same input. It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running. It has been empirically proven that H1(P,P)==1 is the correct halt status for the input to H1(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H1(P,P) that H1 derives halts. When the actual facts contradict your expectations it is not the facts that must change. > > And as you usefully pointed out, the halting problem doesn't deal in halt *deciders*. It deals in halt *determiners*. And unlike a halt decider H which can't even be asked if P(P) halts, we can ask a halt determiner that question but it still gets the wrong answer. > > So the halting problem proofs still stand. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ] |
| Message-ID | <3da07e12-b213-4e89-8b0b-893055d0e7ccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50503 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:24:06 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 6:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2022 5:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > >>>>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P). > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. > >>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > >>>>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > >>>>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself? > >>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > >>>>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P). > >>>>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met? > >>>>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat > >>>>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. > >>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a > >>>>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the > >>>>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is > >>>>>> simply untrue. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) > >>>>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that > >>>>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs > >>>>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria > >>>>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning > >>>>> > >>>> Same post same author: > >>>> > >>>> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs > >>>> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 > >>>> > >>>> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 > >>>>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. > >>>> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs. > >>> > >>> It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner. > >> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status > >> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct > >> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. > > > > Based on H being a halt *decider* as opposed to a halt *determiner*, and the latter is what everyone else is interested in. > > > >> > >> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must > >> compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly > >> specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs) > >> at all. > > > > But as you've shown, a halt *decider* is not computing a pure function of its inputs because H1(P,P) and H(P,P) give different answers for the same input. > > It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status > for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct > simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H > has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running. But your H is a halt decider, not a halt determiner, so it has nothing to do with the halting problem. > > It has been empirically proven that H1(P,P)==1 is the correct halt > status for the input to H1(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven > correct simulation of the input to H1(P,P) that H1 derives halts. But your H1 is a also halt decider, not a halt determiner, so it has nothing to do with the halting problem. > > When the actual facts contradict your expectations it is not the facts > that must change. As you've usefully shown, no one cares about halt deciders anymore because the halting problem actually deals in halt determiners. > > > > And as you usefully pointed out, the halting problem doesn't deal in halt *deciders*. It deals in halt *determiners*. And unlike a halt decider H which can't even be asked if P(P) halts, we can ask a halt determiner that question but it still gets the wrong answer. > > > > So the halting problem proofs still stand. > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott > > "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." > Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <JiAfK.1463$j0D5.912@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #50440 |
On 5/13/22 4:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>> >>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>> >>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>> input >>>>> actually specifies. >>>> >>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is >>>> incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually >>>> specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). >>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect >> >> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". > > No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. There is only ONE definition of the Halting Problem, can you make a machine that answers in finite time if the Machine M applied to input w will Halt, by giving it a representation of that machine and input. If it is impossible by your definition of a decider to construct such a machine, it doesn't say that the definition are contradictory, but that the answer is that there is no such machine. > >>> on the basis of the >>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct >>> execution of P(P). >> >> False, as has been explained many times. >> >>> They have empirically proven entirely different >>> sequences of configurations. >> >> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong >> answer. > > That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input > specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. Except that it doesn't, since BY DEFINITION it input SPECIFIES the computation P(P), or you formed the input incorrectly. > > That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > expectation incorrect. No, it means YOU were incorrect, > >>> >>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the >>> easily verifiable facts. >> >> So no time for yourself? > > H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly > decide the halt status that its input specifies. > > That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your > expectation incorrect. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 21:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50429 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> *Validity and Soundness* >> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >> better find another topic you don't know about. > > It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for > the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this > input actually specifies. It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the world calls "decide halting". That is, in the context of C-like code that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I don't really expect an answer.) That you have code that decides something else is neither here nor there. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 16:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50446 |
On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>> better find another topic you don't know about. >> >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >> input actually specifies. > > It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the > world calls "decide halting". Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is simply untrue. That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. > That is, in the context of C-like code > that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is > true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. > > Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I > don't really expect an answer.) > > That you have code that decides something else is neither here nor > there. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 17:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <OlAfK.1464$j0D5.1103@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #50450 |
On 5/13/22 5:05 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>> >>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>> input actually specifies. >> >> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the >> world calls "decide halting". > > Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a > definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the > liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is > simply untrue. > > That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) > directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that > requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs > conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria > is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases. No, it doesn't contradict that definition. The Halting Problem is asking IF you can make a machine to do x. If the definition of a decider means that it can't do x, then the answer is NO, you can't make a machie to do x. You are off by a level of logic in what is being asked. > >> That is, in the context of C-like code >> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is >> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. >> >> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I >> don't really expect an answer.) >> >> That you have code that decides something else is neither here nor >> there. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 00:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50450 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>> >>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>> input actually specifies. >> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the >> world calls "decide halting". > > Tarski makes a similar mistake... <snip distractions> >> That is, in the context of C-like code >> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is >> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. >> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I >> don't really expect an answer.) As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that would be the end of you bragging about halting. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50490 |
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>> >>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>> input actually specifies. >>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the >>> world calls "decide halting". >> >> Tarski makes a similar mistake... > > <snip distractions> > >>> That is, in the context of C-like code >>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is >>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. >>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I >>> don't really expect an answer.) > > As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that > would be the end of you bragging about halting. > All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 19:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #50493 |
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you >>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>> >>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for >>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>> input actually specifies. >>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what >>>> the >>>> world calls "decide halting". >>> >>> Tarski makes a similar mistake... >> >> <snip distractions> >> >>>> That is, in the context of C-like code >>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is >>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. >>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I >>>> don't really expect an answer.) >> >> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that >> would be the end of you bragging about halting. >> > > All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical > incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their > reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken. > No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system. If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system. Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 18:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] |
| Message-ID | <UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50502 |
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>> >>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status >>>>>> for >>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>>> input actually specifies. >>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do >>>>> what the >>>>> world calls "decide halting". >>>> >>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake... >>> >>> <snip distractions> >>> >>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code >>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is >>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. >>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I >>>>> don't really expect an answer.) >>> >>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that >>> would be the end of you bragging about halting. >>> >> >> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical >> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their >> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken. >> > > No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the > system. > > If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to > strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system. > > Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in > the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works. The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science. The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when examined at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself. Wittgenstein had the exact same issue with mathematicians learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking for granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly correct. When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] |
| Message-ID | <YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #50505 |
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness* >>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, >>>>>>>> so you >>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt >>>>>>> status for >>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this >>>>>>> input actually specifies. >>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do >>>>>> what the >>>>>> world calls "decide halting". >>>>> >>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake... >>>> >>>> <snip distractions> >>>> >>>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code >>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that >>>>>> D(X,Y) is >>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. >>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I >>>>>> don't really expect an answer.) >>>> >>>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that >>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting. >>>> >>> >>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical >>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their >>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken. >>> >> >> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the >> system. >> >> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to >> strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system. >> >> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in >> the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works. > > The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding of > all of the subtle nuances of computer science. > > The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic systems > systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when examined at the > very high level abstraction of the philosophical foundation of the > notion of (analytic) truth itself. > > ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians > learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of the > key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking for > granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly correct. > > When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally invisible > to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician. > That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right. Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics (and thought it not valuable) You aseem to be refering to writings published post-humously about a his comments on a paper he hadn't yet actually read, and that he never repeated after actually reading the paper. Yes, that is very good basis for claiming your idea have to be right. You have shown ZERO understanding for the rules of logic, and that your opinions are basically worthless. If you want to try to ACTUAL PROVE something, based on REAL ESTABLISHED rules of logic, go ahead and give a try. Note, this means NOT just falling back to "the meaning of the words" except when you are actually QUOTING the accepted meaning of those words in the field and showing how they apply. I don't know if I have ever seen you put together a string of logic more that one or two steps before you go off on a "this must be true" side track, and never actually use any of the fundamental definitions. (You may quotes some of them, but then never actually use that definition in your nest step of the proof).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web