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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 00:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50493 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > 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. Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission. -- 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 19:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50507 |
On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> 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. > > Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind > you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) > halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer > will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is > pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission. > Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x) predicate can exist on the basis of his failure to prove that the liar paradox is true. 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. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 01:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50511 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> 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. >> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind >> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) >> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer >> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is >> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission. > > Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)... Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do. -- 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 22:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50524 |
On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> 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. >>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind >>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) >>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer >>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is >>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission. >> >> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)... > > Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering > is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do. > 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. -- 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 20:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <d25c4bcc-d665-4a2a-9593-b2d8f04a65a5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50535 |
On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:35:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote: > > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > > > >> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote: > >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: > >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 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. > >>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind > >>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) > >>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer > >>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is > >>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission. > >> > >> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)... > > > > Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering > > is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do. > > > 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. Just because a requirement can't be met doesn't mean it's wrong. It's simply an impossible problem. And, as stated before, the halting problem makes use of a halt determiner, not a halt decider. The former explicitly allows for a non-input to be represented by an input (i.e. for a turing machine to be represented by a string). The proofs just got the wording wrong. So unlike a halt decider H which according to you can't be asked if P(P) halts, a halt determiner can explicitly be asked if P(P) halts, but it still gets the wrong answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-13 23:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <6ZWdnZCCdc9JseL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50538 |
On 5/13/2022 10:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:35:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 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. >>>>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind >>>>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) >>>>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer >>>>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is >>>>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission. >>>> >>>> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)... >>> >>> Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering >>> is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do. >>> >> 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. > > Just because a requirement can't be met doesn't mean it's wrong. It's simply an impossible problem. > > And, as stated before, the halting problem makes use of a halt determiner, not a halt decider. The former explicitly allows for a non-input to be represented by an input (i.e. for a turing machine to be represented by a string). The proofs just got the wording wrong. So unlike a halt decider H which according to you can't be asked if P(P) halts, a halt determiner can explicitly be asked if P(P) halts, but it still gets the wrong answer. That must compute the mapping form their inputs to their own final accept / reject state. -- 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 | 2022-05-14 09:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <ZpOfK.4919$XhAf.2741@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #50540 |
On 5/14/22 12:15 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2022 10:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:35:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 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. >>>>>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons >>>>>> mind >>>>>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) >>>>>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer >>>>>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is >>>>>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission. >>>>> >>>>> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)... >>>> >>>> Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering >>>> is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do. >>>> >>> 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. >> >> Just because a requirement can't be met doesn't mean it's wrong. It's >> simply an impossible problem. >> >> And, as stated before, the halting problem makes use of a halt >> determiner, not a halt decider. The former explicitly allows for a >> non-input to be represented by an input (i.e. for a turing machine to >> be represented by a string). The proofs just got the wording wrong. >> So unlike a halt decider H which according to you can't be asked if >> P(P) halts, a halt determiner can explicitly be asked if P(P) halts, >> but it still gets the wrong answer. > > That must compute the mapping form their inputs to their own final > accept / reject state. > You keep on missing that the mapping of a Foo Decider needs to match the Foo mapping, or it isn't a Foo Decider, but some other decider. Halting has a defined mapping. If you want to claim that mapping can't be imposed on a decider, then you just aggreed to the conclusion of the Theorem. Your H is NOT a "Halting Decider" (per the Halting Problem) because the mapping it computes doesn't match that of the Halting Function defined by the Halting Problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 09:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50535 |
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. You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined, are contradictory. -- 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 | 2022-05-14 09:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50541 |
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. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation. > You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two > notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined, > are contradictory. > *The corrected halting problem definition* In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program *specified by this description* will finish running, or continue to run forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 10:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #50554 |
On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem > definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a decider > thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation. > >> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two >> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined, >> are contradictory. >> > > *The corrected halting problem definition* > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of > determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an > input, whether the program *specified by this description* will finish > running, or continue to run forever. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem. You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic, or of Truth. The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that program can't be specified to the "decider", then the decider just fails to be an answer to the Halting Problem. Otherwise, I can trivially write a "correct" halt decider by just defining that it can accept a very limited set of encoded programs (like none with backward jumps), and then I can easily decide if they will halt or not. This example shows the incorrectness of YOUR (false) definition. You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 09:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50555 |
On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem >> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a >> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation. >> >>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two >>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined, >>> are contradictory. >>> >> >> *The corrected halting problem definition* >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of >> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and >> an input, whether the program *specified by this description* will >> finish running, or continue to run forever. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >> >> > > WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem. > [ computer science is inconsistent ] If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning. If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a halt decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of these two must go or computer science remains inconsistent. learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all. Like with religious people they tend to believe that the contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their current understanding. > You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic, or > of Truth. > > The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that program > can't be specified to the "decider", then the decider just fails to be > an answer to the Halting Problem. > > Otherwise, I can trivially write a "correct" halt decider by just > defining that it can accept a very limited set of encoded programs (like > none with backward jumps), and then I can easily decide if they will > halt or not. > > This example shows the incorrectness of YOUR (false) definition. > > You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field. -- 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 | 2022-05-14 11:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #50557 |
On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
>>> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a
>>> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation.
>>>
>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two
>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined,
>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>>> an input, whether the program *specified by this description* will
>>> finish running, or continue to run forever.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>
>
> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then
> computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively
> proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning.
>
> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an
> accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this input
> actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a halt decider
> must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of these two must go
> or computer science remains inconsistent.
>
> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take
> the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>
> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the contradictions
> are somehow resolved at a level higher than their current understanding.
Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT inconsistent,
unless you require that Halting be computable.
The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping of
a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting} based
on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite number
of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded number of
step.
Right? That is a very straight forward definition, and all Inputs have a
well defined and definite output. No Machine + Input can do both be
Halting and Non-Halting, or fail to be at least one of Halting or
Non-Halting. (Either then number of steps processed halts at a finite
number in a final state or counts to an unbounded number).
A Decider, always maps an input (in its domain) to an output (in its
range). The quesiton of the Halting Problem is does there exist a
Decider that its input -> output map matches the Halting Mapping.
Since a decider in this case is a Turing Machine, we know that its input
is a string in a given alphabet, so the question comes, can we alway
express a Turing Machine as a finite string representation, and the
answer to that is YES. (Maybe not in all alphabets, but there exist
alphabets that can express them).
This is because BY DEFINITON, a Turing Machine has a finite number of
states, and accepts a tape with a finite alphabet, thus we have a finite
number of states * a fintie number if symbols at the tape head giving a
finite number of cases specifying a finite state, a finite symbol, and a
binary tape motion. This is thus expressable in a finite string.
Thus we can ALWAYS convert the input to the Halting Mapping into some
input that FULLY EXPRESSES what the input is, thus there exists machines
with a range that expresses ALL possible Turing Machine + Input
possibilities. We actually knew that before from the existence of the
Universal Turing Machine, which takes as its input such a description.
Thus, if a given machine can't "understand" its input as such a machine
in some cases, the error is in that particular machine, not the
specification.
Now, yes, it is still possible that no machine can actually compute such
a mapping, but that is the question itself. Your error is you seem to be
presuming that the definition of a Halt Decider requires that such a
machine actually exist, which it doesn't.
It is the same as you idea that the Truth of a statement requires that a
Proof or Refutation exist, which it doesn't. (We are allowed to have
Unknown and even Unknowable Truths).
There is no conflict, just the fact that such a machine can not exist.
>
>> You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic, or
>> of Truth.
>>
>> The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that
>> program can't be specified to the "decider", then the decider just
>> fails to be an answer to the Halting Problem.
>>
>> Otherwise, I can trivially write a "correct" halt decider by just
>> defining that it can accept a very limited set of encoded programs
>> (like none with backward jumps), and then I can easily decide if they
>> will halt or not.
>>
>> This example shows the incorrectness of YOUR (false) definition.
>>
>> You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 11:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50561 |
On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
>>>> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a
>>>> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation.
>>>>
>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two
>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally
>>>>> defined,
>>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>>>> an input, whether the program *specified by this description* will
>>>> finish running, or continue to run forever.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>>
>>
>> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then
>> computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively
>> proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning.
>>
>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an
>> accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>> input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a halt
>> decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of these
>> two must go or computer science remains inconsistent.
>>
>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take
>> the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>>
>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the
>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their
>> current understanding.
>
> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT inconsistent,
> unless you require that Halting be computable.
>
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
The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
criteria are incorrect.
> The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping of
> a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting} based
> on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite number
> of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded number of
> step.
>
It must be the actual behavior actually specified by the inputs and
cannot be the behavior specified by non-inputs unless this behavior is
identical to the behavior of the inputs.
It has previously simply always been (incorrectly) assumed to be the
case that the behavior specified by the inputs cannot possibly diverge
from the behavior of their direct execution.
In those cases where the actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P)
is not identical to the behavior of the direct execution of P(P) the
definition of the halting criteria directly contradicts the definition
of a decider and the definition of a computation, thus invalidating it.
> Right? That is a very straight forward definition, and all Inputs have a
> well defined and definite output. No Machine + Input can do both be
> Halting and Non-Halting, or fail to be at least one of Halting or
> Non-Halting. (Either then number of steps processed halts at a finite
> number in a final state or counts to an unbounded number).
>
> A Decider, always maps an input (in its domain) to an output (in its
> range). The quesiton of the Halting Problem is does there exist a
> Decider that its input -> output map matches the Halting Mapping.
>
> Since a decider in this case is a Turing Machine, we know that its input
> is a string in a given alphabet, so the question comes, can we alway
> express a Turing Machine as a finite string representation, and the
> answer to that is YES. (Maybe not in all alphabets, but there exist
> alphabets that can express them).
>
> This is because BY DEFINITON, a Turing Machine has a finite number of
> states, and accepts a tape with a finite alphabet, thus we have a finite
> number of states * a fintie number if symbols at the tape head giving a
> finite number of cases specifying a finite state, a finite symbol, and a
> binary tape motion. This is thus expressable in a finite string.
>
> Thus we can ALWAYS convert the input to the Halting Mapping into some
> input that FULLY EXPRESSES what the input is, thus there exists machines
> with a range that expresses ALL possible Turing Machine + Input
> possibilities. We actually knew that before from the existence of the
> Universal Turing Machine, which takes as its input such a description.
>
> Thus, if a given machine can't "understand" its input as such a machine
> in some cases, the error is in that particular machine, not the
> specification.
>
> Now, yes, it is still possible that no machine can actually compute such
> a mapping, but that is the question itself. Your error is you seem to be
> presuming that the definition of a Halt Decider requires that such a
> machine actually exist, which it doesn't.
>
> It is the same as you idea that the Truth of a statement requires that a
> Proof or Refutation exist, which it doesn't. (We are allowed to have
> Unknown and even Unknowable Truths).
>
> There is no conflict, just the fact that such a machine can not exist.
>
>>
>>> You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic,
>>> or of Truth.
>>>
>>> The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that
>>> program can't be specified to the "decider", then the decider just
>>> fails to be an answer to the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I can trivially write a "correct" halt decider by just
>>> defining that it can accept a very limited set of encoded programs
>>> (like none with backward jumps), and then I can easily decide if they
>>> will halt or not.
>>>
>>> This example shows the incorrectness of YOUR (false) definition.
>>>
>>> You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field.
>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2022-05-14 17:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #50564 |
On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
>>>>> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a
>>>>> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a
>>>>> computation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two
>>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally
>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>>> and an input, whether the program *specified by this description*
>>>>> will finish running, or continue to run forever.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
>>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then
>>> computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively
>>> proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning.
>>>
>>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an
>>> accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>> input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a
>>> halt decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of
>>> these two must go or computer science remains inconsistent.
>>>
>>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take
>>> the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>>>
>>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the
>>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their
>>> current understanding.
>>
>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>
>
> 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
>
> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
> computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
> criteria are incorrect.
You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as
a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of
a decider. In fact, the question is "Is the Halting Function
Commputable?" This means that if the definition of the Halting Criteria
is incompatible with making a computation from it, we get the simple
answer of "No, the Halting Function is not computable"
You don't seem to understnad that not all functions are computatable,
and that for those that answer to the question of can you make a Turing
Machine compute them is just "No".
>
>> The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping
>> of a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting}
>> based on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite
>> number of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded
>> number of step.
>>
>
> It must be the actual behavior actually specified by the inputs and
> cannot be the behavior specified by non-inputs unless this behavior is
> identical to the behavior of the inputs.
Right, and since the input specifies all the details of the Turing
Machine in question, the "behavior" of that input relates to that machine.
That IS the input, not a non-input. In fact, YOUR example asks about a
non-input, as P calls H which isn't provided in the input, and thus it
is invalid for your H to answer about that behavior.
>
> It has previously simply always been (incorrectly) assumed to be the
> case that the behavior specified by the inputs cannot possibly diverge
> from the behavior of their direct execution.
Because BY DEFINITION, it CAN'T, or the decider doesn't meet the
requriements.
>
> In those cases where the actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P)
> is not identical to the behavior of the direct execution of P(P) the
> definition of the halting criteria directly contradicts the definition
> of a decider and the definition of a computation, thus invalidating it.
Nope, it proves that your H fails to meet the requriements. After all,
the input DOES specify the behavior being asked about, if it was
constructed correctly as a representation of the machine in question.
Thus any error is on the decider or the person who designed it and the
representation specification.
Note, DEFINITIONS CAN NOT BE INVALID.
There is no contradiction between the definition of a decider and the
Halting Problem, only the fact that no decider can exist that meets the
requirements
If you can't handle that, then that is YOUR problem, not the logic systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 16:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50582 |
On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting
>>>>>> problem definition so that it does not diverge from the definition
>>>>>> of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a
>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two
>>>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally
>>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>>>> and an input, whether the program *specified by this description*
>>>>>> will finish running, or continue to run forever.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
>>>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other
>>>> then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus
>>>> conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct
>>>> reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to
>>>> an accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>> input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a
>>>> halt decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of
>>>> these two must go or computer science remains inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to
>>>> take the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>>>>
>>>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the
>>>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their
>>>> current understanding.
>>>
>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
>> computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
>> criteria are incorrect.
>
> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as
> a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of
> a decider.
So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in computer
science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that can compute
the length of a finite string in the same way that there is no
non-computation that can compute halting.
> In fact, the question is "Is the Halting Function
> Commputable?" This means that if the definition of the Halting Criteria
> is incompatible with making a computation from it, we get the simple
> answer of "No, the Halting Function is not computable"
>
> You don't seem to understnad that not all functions are computatable,
> and that for those that answer to the question of can you make a Turing
> Machine compute them is just "No".
>
>>
>>> The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping
>>> of a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting}
>>> based on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite
>>> number of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded
>>> number of step.
>>>
>>
>> It must be the actual behavior actually specified by the inputs and
>> cannot be the behavior specified by non-inputs unless this behavior is
>> identical to the behavior of the inputs.
>
> Right, and since the input specifies all the details of the Turing
> Machine in question, the "behavior" of that input relates to that machine.
>
> That IS the input, not a non-input. In fact, YOUR example asks about a
> non-input, as P calls H which isn't provided in the input, and thus it
> is invalid for your H to answer about that behavior.
>
>
>>
>> It has previously simply always been (incorrectly) assumed to be the
>> case that the behavior specified by the inputs cannot possibly diverge
>> from the behavior of their direct execution.
>
> Because BY DEFINITION, it CAN'T, or the decider doesn't meet the
> requriements.
>
>>
>> In those cases where the actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P)
>> is not identical to the behavior of the direct execution of P(P) the
>> definition of the halting criteria directly contradicts the definition
>> of a decider and the definition of a computation, thus invalidating it.
>
> Nope, it proves that your H fails to meet the requriements. After all,
> the input DOES specify the behavior being asked about, if it was
> constructed correctly as a representation of the machine in question.
>
> Thus any error is on the decider or the person who designed it and the
> representation specification.
>
> Note, DEFINITIONS CAN NOT BE INVALID.
>
> There is no contradiction between the definition of a decider and the
> Halting Problem, only the fact that no decider can exist that meets the
> requirements
>
> If you can't handle that, then that is YOUR problem, not the logic systems.
--
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 | 2022-05-14 18:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #50586 |
On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting >>>>>>> problem definition so that it does not diverge from the >>>>>>> definition of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the >>>>>>> definition of a computation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two >>>>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally >>>>>>>> defined, >>>>>>>> are contradictory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition* >>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of >>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program >>>>>>> and an input, whether the program *specified by this description* >>>>>>> will finish running, or continue to run forever. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [ computer science is inconsistent ] >>>>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other >>>>> then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus >>>>> conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct >>>>> reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to >>>>> an accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that >>>>> this input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies >>>>> that a halt decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then >>>>> one of these two must go or computer science remains inconsistent. >>>>> >>>>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to >>>>> take the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all. >>>>> >>>>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the >>>>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their >>>>> current understanding. >>>> >>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT >>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable. >>>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the >>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of >>> a computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting >>> criteria are incorrect. >> >> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined >> as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the >> definition of a decider. > > So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in computer > science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that can compute > the length of a finite string in the same way that there is no > non-computation that can compute halting. Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box of oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category error proving you don't know what you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-14 18:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50591 |
On 5/14/2022 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting >>>>>>>> problem definition so that it does not diverge from the >>>>>>>> definition of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the >>>>>>>> definition of a computation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two >>>>>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally >>>>>>>>> defined, >>>>>>>>> are contradictory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition* >>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of >>>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program >>>>>>>> and an input, whether the program *specified by this >>>>>>>> description* will finish running, or continue to run forever. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [ computer science is inconsistent ] >>>>>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other >>>>>> then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus >>>>>> conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct >>>>>> reasoning. >>>>>> >>>>>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to >>>>>> an accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that >>>>>> this input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies >>>>>> that a halt decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then >>>>>> one of these two must go or computer science remains inconsistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to >>>>>> take the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the >>>>>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their >>>>>> current understanding. >>>>> >>>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT >>>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the >>>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of >>>> a computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting >>>> criteria are incorrect. >>> >>> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined >>> as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the >>> definition of a decider. >> >> So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in >> computer science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that >> can compute the length of a finite string in the same way that there >> is no non-computation that can compute halting. > > Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box of > oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category error > proving you don't know what you are talking about. In this same way requiring a non-computation to compute is an incorrect problem definition. -- 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 | 2022-05-14 19:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] |
| Message-ID | <BhXfK.1975$NMxb.1577@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #50599 |
On 5/14/22 7:33 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/14/2022 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. We must simply correct the error of the halting >>>>>>>>> problem definition so that it does not diverge from the >>>>>>>>> definition of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the >>>>>>>>> definition of a computation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two >>>>>>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally >>>>>>>>>> defined, >>>>>>>>>> are contradictory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition* >>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of >>>>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer >>>>>>>>> program and an input, whether the program *specified by this >>>>>>>>> description* will finish running, or continue to run forever. >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ computer science is inconsistent ] >>>>>>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other >>>>>>> then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus >>>>>>> conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct >>>>>>> reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs >>>>>>> to an accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior >>>>>>> that this input actually specifies and the halting problem >>>>>>> specifies that a halt decider must compute the mapping from >>>>>>> non-inputs, then one of these two must go or computer science >>>>>>> remains inconsistent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to >>>>>>> take the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the >>>>>>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their >>>>>>> current understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT >>>>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the >>>>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition >>>>> of a computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the >>>>> halting criteria are incorrect. >>>> >>>> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT >>>> defined as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the >>>> definition of a decider. >>> >>> So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in >>> computer science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that >>> can compute the length of a finite string in the same way that there >>> is no non-computation that can compute halting. >> >> Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box >> of oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category >> error proving you don't know what you are talking about. > > In this same way requiring a non-computation to compute is an incorrect > problem definition. > Nope, just you making Herring in Red sauce. You are just proving your ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-15 00:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #50554 |
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? If so, you need to get on with it. That's the function the world cares about. That's the function that will make you famous. H isn't it, and no one cares about whatever it is that H is deciding. > We must simply correct the error of the halting problem definition... The fact that H is deciding something else, does not mean that D can't also exist. Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise or there can't be. Of course you have been playing this game long enough to know that you must never say which you believe to be the case! -- 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 | 2022-05-14 18:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] |
| Message-ID | <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50593 |
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. > If so, > you need to get on with it. That's the function the world cares about. > That's the function that will make you famous. H isn't it, and no one > cares about whatever it is that H is deciding. > >> We must simply correct the error of the halting problem definition... > > The fact that H is deciding something else, does not mean that D can't > also exist. Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == true > if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise or there can't be. Of > course you have been playing this game long enough to know that you must > never say which you believe to be the case! > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web