Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #130525 > unrolled thread

Re: on deciding the undecidable

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-27 12:44 +0300
    Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 12:50 -0700
      Re: on deciding the undecidable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 12:55 -0700
    Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 12:19 -0500
    Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:12 -0700
      Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 11:15 -0500
        Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 11:39 -0500
          Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 10:13 -0700
        Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 16:51 +0000
          Re: on deciding the undecidable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 12:36 -0700
        Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:32 -0700
    Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 13:58 -0500
      Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-28 20:18 -0400
    Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 10:36 -0500
      Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 16:50 +0000
      Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-28 11:49 +0300
        Re: on deciding the undecidable sion F2 <sionf2@drum.cc> - 2025-09-28 06:30 -0500
        Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 09:19 -0500
          Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-29 12:26 +0300
            Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 10:25 -0500
              Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 16:55 +0000
                Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 13:12 -0500
                  Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 22:32 -0400
              Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 22:32 -0400
              Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-30 13:31 +0300
                Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 12:56 -0500
                  Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-01 11:36 +0300
                    Re: on deciding the undecidable Olcott's paradigm shift olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 08:24 -0500
                      Re: on deciding the undecidable Olcott's paradigm shift "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 22:16 -0700
                      Re: on deciding the undecidable Olcott's paradigm shift Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-02 11:39 +0300
      Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-28 20:18 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#130525 — Re: on deciding the undecidable

On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:

> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
> actually remains relevant.

The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
problem of Turing machines.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#130551

On 9/27/25 9:51 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>>
>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but it does trivialize it:
>>>
>>> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid decision
>>> paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders on non-trivial
>>> semantics.
>>>
>>
>> That might not be Turing computable or it will
>> be Turing computable through a special interface.
> 
> Well, yes: a magic "let's send a message to the demi-oracle in the RTM
> world and get an answer" interface.
> 

polcott doesn't speak for my resolution. there's no reason full 
reflection can't solve this because knowing the full state of the 
machine allows you to predict it to the point of potential contradiction.

-- 
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis.

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130647

On 9/27/2025 12:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 9/27/25 9:51 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>>>> formulate
>>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input 
>>>>>> machines, and
>>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but it does trivialize it:
>>>>
>>>> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid 
>>>> decision
>>>> paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders on non- 
>>>> trivial
>>>> semantics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That might not be Turing computable or it will
>>> be Turing computable through a special interface.
>>
>> Well, yes: a magic "let's send a message to the demi-oracle in the RTM
>> world and get an answer" interface.
>>
> 
> polcott doesn't speak for my resolution. there's no reason full 
> reflection can't solve this because knowing the full state of the 
> machine allows you to predict it to the point of potential contradiction.
> 

Even here? Read all:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c++/c/7u_rLgQe86k/m/fYU9SnuAFQAJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130552

On 9/27/2025 12:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 9/27/25 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/27/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 9/27/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>>>>> formulate
>>>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input 
>>>>>>> machines, and
>>>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but it does trivialize it:
>>>>>
>>>>> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid 
>>>>> decision paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders 
>>>>> on non-trivial semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That might not be Turing computable or it will
>>>> be Turing computable through a special interface.
>>>>
>>>
>>> the RTM needs two changes:
>>>
>>> (1) some way to access the description of the running machine, 
>>> perhaps an instruction that dumps the machine description to tape at 
>>> the tape head
>>>
>>> (2) some way to access the state of the running machine, perhaps an 
>>> instruction that dumps it's state number to tape at the tape head.
>>>
>>
>> That works just fine with my x86utm operating
>> system level halt decider.
> 
> sorry what works just fine?
> 

my x86utm operating system level halt decider.
The x86utm operating system is the basis of
all of my concrete work.

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
Unless abstractions are made concrete key details
slip through the cracks of understanding.

>>
>>> that information is certainly turing recognizable, and therefore it 
>>> is turing computable. and indeed the results of RTMs can be simulated 
>>> by TMs which stick to /just/ setting up the sim infrastructure and 
>>> then running the RTMs, but those results ofc don't apply to TMs.
>>>
>>> the problem with TMs is a *mechanical* issue: it lacks a mechanism to 
>>> access reflection, it's not *computational* issue.
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 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]

#130558

On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
> 
>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>> actually remains relevant.
> 
> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
> problem of Turing machines.
> 

but it does trivialize it:

RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid decision 
paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders on non-trivial 
semantics.

-- 
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis.

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130587

On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>
>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>> actually remains relevant.
>>
>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>> problem of Turing machines.
>>
> 
> but it does trivialize it:
> 
> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid decision 
> paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders on non-trivial 
> semantics.
> 

That might not be Turing computable or it will
be Turing computable through a special interface.

-- 
Copyright 2025 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]

#130618

On 9/27/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 9/27/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>>
>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>>> formulate
>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input 
>>>>> machines, and
>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but it does trivialize it:
>>>
>>> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid 
>>> decision paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders on 
>>> non-trivial semantics.
>>>
>>
>> That might not be Turing computable or it will
>> be Turing computable through a special interface.
>>
> 
> the RTM needs two changes:
> 
> (1) some way to access the description of the running machine, perhaps 
> an instruction that dumps the machine description to tape at the tape head
> 
> (2) some way to access the state of the running machine, perhaps an 
> instruction that dumps it's state number to tape at the tape head.
> 

That works just fine with my x86utm operating
system level halt decider.

> that information is certainly turing recognizable, and therefore it is 
> turing computable. and indeed the results of RTMs can be simulated by 
> TMs which stick to /just/ setting up the sim infrastructure and then 
> running the RTMs, but those results ofc don't apply to TMs.
> 
> the problem with TMs is a *mechanical* issue: it lacks a mechanism to 
> access reflection, it's not *computational* issue.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 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]

#130634

On 9/27/25 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/27/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 9/27/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>>>> formulate
>>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input 
>>>>>> machines, and
>>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but it does trivialize it:
>>>>
>>>> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid 
>>>> decision paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders 
>>>> on non-trivial semantics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That might not be Turing computable or it will
>>> be Turing computable through a special interface.
>>>
>>
>> the RTM needs two changes:
>>
>> (1) some way to access the description of the running machine, perhaps 
>> an instruction that dumps the machine description to tape at the tape 
>> head
>>
>> (2) some way to access the state of the running machine, perhaps an 
>> instruction that dumps it's state number to tape at the tape head.
>>
> 
> That works just fine with my x86utm operating
> system level halt decider.

sorry what works just fine?

> 
>> that information is certainly turing recognizable, and therefore it is 
>> turing computable. and indeed the results of RTMs can be simulated by 
>> TMs which stick to /just/ setting up the sim infrastructure and then 
>> running the RTMs, but those results ofc don't apply to TMs.
>>
>> the problem with TMs is a *mechanical* issue: it lacks a mechanism to 
>> access reflection, it's not *computational* issue.
>>
> 
> 


-- 
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis.

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130635

On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>
>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>
>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>
>> 
>> but it does trivialize it:
>> 
>> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid decision 
>> paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders on non-trivial 
>> semantics.
>> 
>
> That might not be Turing computable or it will
> be Turing computable through a special interface.

Well, yes: a magic "let's send a message to the demi-oracle in the RTM
world and get an answer" interface.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130681

On 9/27/2025 9:51 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
[...]
> Well, yes: a magic "let's send a message to the demi-oracle in the RTM
> world and get an answer" interface.

I wonder how many Ouija boards Olcott owns?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130660

On 9/27/25 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/27/2025 11:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 9/27/25 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>
>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>> formulate
>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, 
>>>> and
>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>
>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>
>>
>> but it does trivialize it:
>>
>> RTMs can compute anything a TM can compute, but RTMs also avoid 
>> decision paradoxes, opening up the possibility of general deciders on 
>> non-trivial semantics.
>>
> 
> That might not be Turing computable or it will
> be Turing computable through a special interface.
> 

the RTM needs two changes:

(1) some way to access the description of the running machine, perhaps 
an instruction that dumps the machine description to tape at the tape head

(2) some way to access the state of the running machine, perhaps an 
instruction that dumps it's state number to tape at the tape head.

that information is certainly turing recognizable, and therefore it is 
turing computable. and indeed the results of RTMs can be simulated by 
TMs which stick to /just/ setting up the sim infrastructure and then 
running the RTMs, but those results ofc don't apply to TMs.

the problem with TMs is a *mechanical* issue: it lacks a mechanism to 
access reflection, it's not *computational* issue.

-- 
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis.

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130579

On 9/27/2025 11:50 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>
>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>
>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>
>>
>> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
>> restricting them to a specific interface?
> 
> Shouldn't someone of your self-professed calibre know the answer?
> 
> Does your vast engineering experience tell you that by defining an
> interface, context magically appears?
> 

My x86utm operating system level termination analyzer
already does this. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

-- 
Copyright 2025 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]

#130865

On 9/27/25 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/27/2025 11:50 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>>
>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>>> formulate
>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input 
>>>>> machines, and
>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
>>> restricting them to a specific interface?
>>
>> Shouldn't someone of your self-professed calibre know the answer?
>>
>> Does your vast engineering experience tell you that by defining an
>> interface, context magically appears?
>>
> 
> My x86utm operating system level termination analyzer
> already does this. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
> 

The x86UTM operationg system isn't a termination analyzer.

Your various H family of termination analyzers fail to get the right 
answer to the halting problem as shown by asking x86utm to run the input 
program after asking the decider about it, and seeing that when "H" says 
its input is a representation of a non-halting program, that said input 
when run stops.

All you rheteric about that not being what the input means is just an 
admittion that you "H" isn't a halt decider, as that *IS* the questioin 
of the halting problem, no matter how much you want to lie to change it.

All you are doing is proving you are just a pathological liar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130682

On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
> 
>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>> actually remains relevant.
> 
> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
> problem of Turing machines.
> 

Can they be made sensitive to their context by
restricting them to a specific interface?

The LLMs that examined my code could see the full
context. Even though they are stochastic they are
implemented on deterministic machines. My global
termination analyzer could see the full context
of main-->DD.

-- 
Copyright 2025 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]

#130695

On 2025-09-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>> 
>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>> actually remains relevant.
>> 
>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>> problem of Turing machines.
>> 
>
> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
> restricting them to a specific interface?

Shouldn't someone of your self-professed calibre know the answer?

Does your vast engineering experience tell you that by defining an
interface, context magically appears?

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130742

On 2025-09-27 15:36:43 +0000, olcott said:

> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>> 
>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>> actually remains relevant.
>> 
>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>> problem of Turing machines.
> 
> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
> restricting them to a specific interface?

Restricting the interface may remove abilities but not add. In order
to add abilities like context sensitivity requires an exension to the
interface or some other extension.

> The LLMs that examined my code could see the full
> context.

Apparently not. The full context includes the larger context
of the context.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130746

Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-09-27 15:36:43 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>
>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>> formulate
>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, 
>>>> and
>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>
>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>
>> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
>> restricting them to a specific interface?
> 
> Restricting the interface may remove abilities but not add. In order
> to add abilities like context sensitivity requires an exension to the
> interface or some other extension.
> 
>> The LLMs that examined my code could see the full
>> context.
> 
> Apparently not. The full context includes the larger context
> of the context.
> 
Can you make the program appeal to the Bible?   There's a great deal 
decided in there that is undecidable.  Use an API is my suggestion, 
consume the resource.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130758

On 9/28/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-09-27 15:36:43 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>
>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>> formulate
>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, 
>>>> and
>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>
>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>
>> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
>> restricting them to a specific interface?
> 
> Restricting the interface may remove abilities but not add. In order
> to add abilities like context sensitivity requires an exension to the
> interface or some other extension.
> 
>> The LLMs that examined my code could see the full
>> context.
> 
> Apparently not. The full context includes the larger context
> of the context.
> 

The full context is the same context that my
x86utm operating system level termination
analyzer sees. It can see main-->DD() at its
beginning.

-- 
Copyright 2025 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]

#130910

On 2025-09-28 14:19:49 +0000, olcott said:

> On 9/28/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-09-27 15:36:43 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>> 
>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can formulate
>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input machines, and
>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>> 
>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>> 
>>> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
>>> restricting them to a specific interface?
>> 
>> Restricting the interface may remove abilities but not add. In order
>> to add abilities like context sensitivity requires an exension to the
>> interface or some other extension.
>> 
>>> The LLMs that examined my code could see the full
>>> context.
>> 
>> Apparently not. The full context includes the larger context
>> of the context.
> 
> The full context is the same context that my
> x86utm operating system level termination
> analyzer sees. It can see main-->DD() at its
> beginning.

No, it is not. The full context includes you and your motivation as
well as everything in texbooks on formal languages and automata.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130937

On 9/29/2025 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-09-28 14:19:49 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/28/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-09-27 15:36:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/27/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-09-18 21:30:00 +0000, dart200 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> so what is my resolution? *context-sensitive deciders* you can 
>>>>>> formulate
>>>>>> this via either 3-value or a pair of 2 value deciders, but you need
>>>>>> context-sensitivity in both to deal with paradoxical input 
>>>>>> machines, and
>>>>>> still remain able to convey the truth of the matter where such truth
>>>>>> actually remains relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem for Turing machines requires that the decider is
>>>>> a Turing machine. A Truing machine is not sensitive to its context.
>>>>> Therefore the above "resolution" is not applicable to the halting
>>>>> problem of Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>> Can they be made sensitive to their context by
>>>> restricting them to a specific interface?
>>>
>>> Restricting the interface may remove abilities but not add. In order
>>> to add abilities like context sensitivity requires an exension to the
>>> interface or some other extension.
>>>
>>>> The LLMs that examined my code could see the full
>>>> context.
>>>
>>> Apparently not. The full context includes the larger context
>>> of the context.
>>
>> The full context is the same context that my
>> x86utm operating system level termination
>> analyzer sees. It can see main-->DD() at its
>> beginning.
> 
> No, it is not. The full context includes you and your motivation as
> well as everything in texbooks on formal languages and automata.
> 

The execution context when DD() is invoked from main().
This is different than when DD is simulated by HHH(DD)
invoked form main().

HHH does measure the semantic halting property
specified by the finite string input to HHH(DD)
because this *FINITE STRING INPUT* does specify
that HHH simulates DD and then simulates an instance
of itself simulating an instance of DD that calls
yet another instance of HHH in recursive simulation
again.

DD() invoked from main() does not specify this.

-- 
Copyright 2025 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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory

csiph-web