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 | 14 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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-15 13:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50596 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because >>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some >>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before. >>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone >>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is >>>> indeed undecidable. >>> >>> Not at all. >> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that >> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? > > In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the > length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt > status of a non-input. > > The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it > must be about the computations that inputs specify. The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your H is not interesting. Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called with the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you should probably stop wasting time on your H. Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not halt, or there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call "research" you won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an important algorithm! -- 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 | 2022-05-17 22:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50624 |
On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because >>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some >>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before. >>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone >>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is >>>>> indeed undecidable. >>>> >>>> Not at all. >>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that >>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? >> >> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the >> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt >> status of a non-input. >> >> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it >> must be about the computations that inputs specify. > > The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). Not when they are correctly simulated by H. > That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard > to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your > H is not interesting. > > Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so > limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called with > the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you > should probably stop wasting time on your H. > > Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only > of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not halt, or > there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call "research" you > won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an > important algorithm! You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to "compute" on non-computation. Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function -- 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 | 2022-05-18 08:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <RC5hK.33657$6dof.20351@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #50638 |
On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong >>>>>>> because >>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some >>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before. >>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by >>>>>> everyone >>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are >>>>>> not) is >>>>>> indeed undecidable. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. >>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that >>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? >>> >>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the >>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt >>> status of a non-input. >>> >>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it >>> must be about the computations that inputs specify. >> >> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). > > Not when they are correctly simulated by H. > >> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard >> to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your >> H is not interesting. >> >> Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so >> limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called with >> the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you >> should probably stop wasting time on your H. >> >> Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only >> of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not halt, or >> there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call "research" you >> won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an >> important algorithm! > > You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to > "compute" on non-computation. > > Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability > theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the > intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is > computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the > function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the > corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > > > > If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either. You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about. It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a Turing Machine. If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute" even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-18 10:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <WNWdnTE3x_87jxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50649 |
On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>>>>
>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
>>>> status of a non-input.
>>>>
>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify.
>>>
>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).
>>
>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H.
>>
>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard
>>> to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your
>>> H is not interesting.
>>>
>>> Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so
>>> limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called with
>>> the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you
>>> should probably stop wasting time on your H.
>>>
>>> Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only
>>> of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not halt, or
>>> there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call "research" you
>>> won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an
>>> important algorithm!
>>
>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to
>> "compute" on non-computation.
>>
>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
>> corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.
>
H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.
> You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.
>
> It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a
> representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a
> Turing Machine.
>
int sum(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent
computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).
> If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing
> Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you are
> just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute" even
> if you don't understand that is what you are saying.
--
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 | 2022-05-18 19:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <q0fhK.10714$tTK.8803@fx97.iad> |
| In reply to | #50658 |
On 5/18/22 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
>>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
>>>>> status of a non-input.
>>>>>
>>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
>>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify.
>>>>
>>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).
>>>
>>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H.
>>>
>>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard
>>>> to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your
>>>> H is not interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so
>>>> limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called
>>>> with
>>>> the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you
>>>> should probably stop wasting time on your H.
>>>>
>>>> Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only
>>>> of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not halt, or
>>>> there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call "research"
>>>> you
>>>> won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an
>>>> important algorithm!
>>>
>>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to
>>> "compute" on non-computation.
>>>
>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return
>>> the corresponding output.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.
>>
>
> H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.
Only if H isn't a Halting Decider.
Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct.
DEFINITION.
>
>> You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.
>>
>> It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a
>> representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a
>> Turing Machine.
>>
>
> int sum(int x, int y)
> {
> return x + y;
> }
>
>
> H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent
> computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).
So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer to
the Halting Problem?
That just PROVES the Theorem you are trying to disprove.
>
>> If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing
>> Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you
>> are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute"
>> even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-18 18:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <gOidnbxCVp5YHxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50669 |
On 5/18/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/18/22 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
>>>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
>>>>>> status of a non-input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
>>>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify.
>>>>>
>>>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).
>>>>
>>>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H.
>>>>
>>>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so
>>>>> hard
>>>>> to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to
>>>>> your
>>>>> H is not interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so
>>>>> limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called
>>>>> with
>>>>> the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you
>>>>> should probably stop wasting time on your H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only
>>>>> of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not
>>>>> halt, or
>>>>> there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call
>>>>> "research" you
>>>>> won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an
>>>>> important algorithm!
>>>>
>>>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is
>>>> required to
>>>> "compute" on non-computation.
>>>>
>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>>>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>>>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return
>>>> the corresponding output.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.
>>>
>>
>> H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.
>
> Only if H isn't a Halting Decider.
>
Your definition of halt decider contradicts the definition of a decider
and also contradicts the definition of a computation, thus is incorrect.
When we restrict the definition of a halt decider to a computation then
H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation by a decider.
a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can
return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct.
>
> DEFINITION.
>
>>
>>> You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.
>>>
>>> It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a
>>> representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of
>>> a Turing Machine.
>>>
>>
>> int sum(int x, int y)
>> {
>> return x + y;
>> }
>>
>>
>> H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent
>> computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).
>
> So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer to
> the Halting Problem?
>
> That just PROVES the Theorem you are trying to disprove.
> >>
>>> If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing
>>> Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you
>>> are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute"
>>> even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.
>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2022-05-18 20:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <GOfhK.33762$6dof.26744@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #50672 |
On 5/18/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/22 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because
>>>>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider
>>>>>>>>>>> in some
>>>>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written
>>>>>>>> such that
>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
>>>>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
>>>>>>> status of a non-input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
>>>>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call
>>>>>> X(Y).
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so
>>>>>> hard
>>>>>> to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> H is not interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so
>>>>>> limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer
>>>>>> called with
>>>>>> the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> should probably stop wasting time on your H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not
>>>>>> halt, or
>>>>>> there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call
>>>>>> "research" you
>>>>>> won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an
>>>>>> important algorithm!
>>>>>
>>>>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is
>>>>> required to
>>>>> "compute" on non-computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in
>>>>> computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized
>>>>> analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a
>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
>>>>> job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it
>>>>> can return the corresponding output.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.
>>
>> Only if H isn't a Halting Decider.
>>
>
> Your definition of halt decider contradicts the definition of a decider
> and also contradicts the definition of a computation, thus is incorrect.
HOW?
A decider is a computation that halts for all inputs.
A Computation is a merely a model of calculation based on a well defined
algorithm.
>
> When we restrict the definition of a halt decider to a computation then
> H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation by a decider.
But that IS the question, can you actually make a Computation that can
decide on the Halting Function. You don't get to change the Halting
Function, you either get to make a Computation/Decider that computes it
or you admit that it isn't possible.
THAT IS the question.
>
> a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
> job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can
> return the corresponding output.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
Right, an the question is is that mapping of (M,w) to the Halting Status
of M applied to w computable.
If you say it can't be done because that mapping contradicts the meaning
of a decider/compuation, then the answer is NO, the Halting Function is
NOT computable.
>
>> Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct.
>>
>> DEFINITION.
>>
>>>
>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is
>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a
>>>> representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of
>>>> a Turing Machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> int sum(int x, int y)
>>> {
>>> return x + y;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent
>>> computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).
>>
>> So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer
>> to the Halting Problem?
>>
>> That just PROVES the Theorem you are trying to disprove.
Yep, you are just proving that which you try to disprove by your own
arguements.
If we can't even try to define a decider to do the job, then it can't be
done.
>> >>
>>>> If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a
>>>> Turing Machine just from a representation of it as a computation,
>>>> then you are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to
>>>> "Compute" even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-18 16:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87k0aiq34f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50638 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because >>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some >>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before. >>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone >>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is >>>>>> indeed undecidable. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. >>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that >>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? >>> >>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the >>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt >>> status of a non-input. >>> >>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it >>> must be about the computations that inputs specify. >> >> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). > > Not when they are correctly simulated by H. Then H is not a halt decider: >> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard >> to avoid taking about. > You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to > "compute" on non-computation. X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The two "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computation that D is supposed to tell up about (and which you now accept, albeit implicitly, that it can't). No one cares about anything else that can be determined by examining X and Y other than whether the call X(Y) is finite or not. At least you are now 100% clear that H is not deciding anything we care about. -- 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 | 2022-05-18 10:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <f-CdnQV0KrZIkhj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50654 |
On 5/18/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because >>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some >>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before. >>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone >>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is >>>>>>> indeed undecidable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all. >>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that >>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? >>>> >>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the >>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt >>>> status of a non-input. >>>> >>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it >>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify. >>> >>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). >> >> Not when they are correctly simulated by H. > > Then H is not a halt decider: > >>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard >>> to avoid taking about. > >> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to >> "compute" on non-computation. > > X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X > and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The two > "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computation that D > is supposed to tell up about (and which you now accept, albeit > implicitly, that it can't). > a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function H(P,P)==0 is correct on this basis. > No one cares about anything else that can be determined by examining X > and Y other than whether the call X(Y) is finite or not. At least you > are now 100% clear that H is not deciding anything we care about. > -- 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 | 2022-05-18 19:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <t2fhK.10715$tTK.3735@fx97.iad> |
| In reply to | #50655 |
On 5/18/22 11:25 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong >>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before. >>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by >>>>>>>> everyone >>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are >>>>>>>> not) is >>>>>>>> indeed undecidable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not at all. >>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such >>>>>> that >>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? >>>>> >>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the >>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt >>>>> status of a non-input. >>>>> >>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it >>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify. >>>> >>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). >>> >>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H. >> >> Then H is not a halt decider: >> >>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard >>>> to avoid taking about. >> >>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to >>> "compute" on non-computation. >> >> X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X >> and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The two >> "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computation that D >> is supposed to tell up about (and which you now accept, albeit >> implicitly, that it can't). >> > > a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the > job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can > return the corresponding output. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > > H(P,P)==0 is correct on this basis. Except that the answer doesn't match the FUNCTION that it is supposed to compute, the HALTING of P(P). Remember, HALTING is defined by does M(w) reach a final state in a finite number of steps. If H(P,P) returns 0, then P(P) does Halt. Maybe H give the right answer to POOP, but not Halting. > >> No one cares about anything else that can be determined by examining X >> and Y other than whether the call X(Y) is finite or not. At least you >> are now 100% clear that H is not deciding anything we care about. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-18 18:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <25WdnQuUuu_rHhj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50670 |
On 5/18/2022 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/18/22 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/18/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
>>>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
>>>>>> status of a non-input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
>>>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify.
>>>>>
>>>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).
>>>>
>>>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H.
>>>
>>> Then H is not a halt decider:
>>>
>>>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so
>>>>> hard
>>>>> to avoid taking about.
>>>
>>>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is
>>>> required to
>>>> "compute" on non-computation.
>>>
>>> X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X
>>> and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The two
>>> "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computation that D
>>> is supposed to tell up about (and which you now accept, albeit
>>> implicitly, that it can't).
>>>
>>
>> a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
>> job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can
>> return the corresponding output.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> H(P,P)==0 is correct on this basis.
>
> Except that the answer doesn't match the FUNCTION that it is supposed to
> compute, the HALTING of P(P).
>
int sum(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
In the exact same way that sum(3,4) cannot match the results of sum(8,9).
> Remember, HALTING is defined by does M(w) reach a final state in a
> finite number of steps. If H(P,P) returns 0, then P(P) does Halt.
The definition requires a non-computation to compute therefore it is
incorrect. These age old problems are only solved by finding their error.
>
> Maybe H give the right answer to POOP, but not Halting.
>
>>
>>> No one cares about anything else that can be determined by examining X
>>> and Y other than whether the call X(Y) is finite or not. At least you
>>> are now 100% clear that H is not deciding anything we care about.
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2022-05-18 20:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <aSfhK.20356$pqKf.2163@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #50673 |
On 5/18/22 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2022 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/22 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because
>>>>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider
>>>>>>>>>>> in some
>>>>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written
>>>>>>>> such that
>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
>>>>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
>>>>>>> status of a non-input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
>>>>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call
>>>>>> X(Y).
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H.
>>>>
>>>> Then H is not a halt decider:
>>>>
>>>>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so
>>>>>> hard
>>>>>> to avoid taking about.
>>>>
>>>>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is
>>>>> required to
>>>>> "compute" on non-computation.
>>>>
>>>> X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X
>>>> and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The
>>>> two
>>>> "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computation that D
>>>> is supposed to tell up about (and which you now accept, albeit
>>>> implicitly, that it can't).
>>>>
>>>
>>> a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
>>> job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it
>>> can return the corresponding output.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>> H(P,P)==0 is correct on this basis.
>>
>> Except that the answer doesn't match the FUNCTION that it is supposed
>> to compute, the HALTING of P(P).
>>
>
> int sum(int x, int y)
> {
> return x + y;
> }
>
> In the exact same way that sum(3,4) cannot match the results of sum(8,9).
Nope.
H(P,P) is asking, BY DEFINITION about P(P) if H is attempting to be a
Halt Decider.
If it isn't asking that question, the H is NOT a Halting Decider, as the
definition of a Something Decider is that it computes the Something
Function.
That Halting Function of M and w, is Does M applied to w halt in a
finite number of steps.
>
>> Remember, HALTING is defined by does M(w) reach a final state in a
>> finite number of steps. If H(P,P) returns 0, then P(P) does Halt.
>
> The definition requires a non-computation to compute therefore it is
> incorrect. These age old problems are only solved by finding their error.
If asking about H^ applied to <H^> is againt the rules, then BY
DEFINITION, the Halting Function is not computable.
You just proved what you were trying to refute.
>
>>
>> Maybe H give the right answer to POOP, but not Halting.
>>
>>>
>>>> No one cares about anything else that can be determined by examining X
>>>> and Y other than whether the call X(Y) is finite or not. At least you
>>>> are now 100% clear that H is not deciding anything we care about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 02:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87fsl68hei.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50655 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/18/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because >>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some >>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before. >>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone >>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is >>>>>>>> indeed undecidable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not at all. >>>>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that >>>>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? >>>>> >>>>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the >>>>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt >>>>> status of a non-input. >>>>> >>>>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it >>>>> must be about the computations that inputs specify. >>>> >>>> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). >>> >>> Not when they are correctly simulated by H. >> Then H is not a halt decider: >> >>>> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard >>>> to avoid taking about. >> >>> You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to >>> "compute" on non-computation. >> X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X >> and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The two >> "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computation that D >> is supposed to tell up about (and which you now accept, albeit >> implicitly, that it can't). > > a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can > return the corresponding output. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > > H(P,P)==0 is correct on this basis. You have trouble with agreement, don't you? Of course H is computing some function. It's just no a function anyone cares about. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 20:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <iLCfK.538$cvmb.310@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #50511 |
On 5/13/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote: > The HP proves that no malformed halt decider that violates the > definition of a decider can correctly decide the halt status in some > cases because it is malformed. > > So you accept as True the statement that "It is impossible to build a Turing Machine that can compute the ACTUAL Halting Mapping of Turing Machine and its input to whether that machine would halt given that input, by being somehow given a representation of the machine and input"?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web