Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36063 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-19 13:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 154 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 12:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:12 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:06 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:23 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:32 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:38 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:59 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:14 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:35 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:12 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:39 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:52 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:58 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 23:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 17:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 15:12 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:47 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 18:30 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 02:56 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:18 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 03:34 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:45 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:34 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:55 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 21:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:32 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:39 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:23 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-11 10:43 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:19 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 10:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 18:20 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 12:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 19:18 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:09 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:44 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 14:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 13:36 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 08:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:04 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 10:27 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:18 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:01 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:41 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-20 17:16 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 14:41 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:55 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 09:40 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 16:49 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 08:44 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:22 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 14:13 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 06:19 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-12 17:33 +0200
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:51 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:27 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:15 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:16 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:56 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 10:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 22:03 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 10:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:07 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:45 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 09:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 21:48 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-15 03:43 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-15 07:54 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:09 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:24 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 13:27 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 21:08 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-12 21:24 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:53 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 22:59 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:32 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 23:31 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 03:51 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:38 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 15:24 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 16:22 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 18:48 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] (Fixing Tarski's nonsense ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:29 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:14 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 20:40 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:58 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 21:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 22:39 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 23:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:41 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 07:23 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-12 23:40 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 18:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 22:57 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:21 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-13 11:49 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:45 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 21:10 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:03 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 16:52 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:37 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:04 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [unknown to be undecidable] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 09:21 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:42 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 16:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 04:39 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ "I agree with Olcott" ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 11:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-11 22:14 -0600
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:10 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:09 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:24 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:59 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:07 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 20:17 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:40 -0700
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 14:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:40 +0100
Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:52 -0500
Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 13:25 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 17:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <lNCdnSsxj8Xyh3f9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36098 |
On 7/10/2021 5:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:58:13 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 4:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:46:28 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 4:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:12:12 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:09:07 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:45:38 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:40 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:06:35 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists even if a collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that which is being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and introduces the notion of computation by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the undecidability of the halting problem that rely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Strachey form, are incorrect. This seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all textbook proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to reign in the ego, mate, Strachey deserves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the credit not you unless you are claiming that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independently reached the same conclusion as Strachey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without being aware of Strachey until recently?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks cite the Strachey form as proof that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is undecidable. Ben, Mike and Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree that the Strachey form proves that the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rec routine P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> §L:if T[P] go to L
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Return §
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Strachey says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying that he just proved that a universal halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider {function T} does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No he isn't; he is saying that a decider can not be part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what is being decided which is quite different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So when Strachey says:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Strachey does not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> {this contradiction shows that the function T cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.}
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He means T cannot decide on P if T is called from within P;
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. the "pathological self reference" you keep going on
>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes and he and everyone else here besides you and I believes
>>>>>>>>>> that this proves that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I read Strachey's letter I didn't get the impression that
>>>>>>>>> that was his conclusion; merely that T cannot decide on P if
>>>>>>>>> called from within P .. i.e. the "Impossible Program".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None-the-less everyone else does get that impression.
>>>>>>>> All of the textbook halting problem undecidability proofs rely
>>>>>>>> on the Strachey form as their entire basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you might be on to something but you need to stop implying
>>>>>>> the halting problem itself is not undecidable in your posts as
>>>>>>> it doesn't help your case (and is the reason I have been
>>>>>>> dismissive of your posts in the past).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I already explained in much more words with many more key
>>>>>> details, if none of these conventional (Strachey based)
>>>>>> undecidability proofs are correct then that doesn't seem to leave
>>>>>> any other proof of halting undecidability:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not
>>>>>> undecidable.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable thus not undecidable.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is probably a good time for me to take a first look at the
>>>>>> actual Turing proof. I merely need to verify that it is
>>>>>> isomorphic to the Strachey form.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are still missing the point: even if [Turing 1937] has the
>>>>> same mistake you still cannot prove that the halting problem
>>>>> itself is not undecidable just because that particular proof is
>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None-the-less once the halting problem is no longer provably
>>>> undecidable computation loses its definite limits.
>>>
>>> No, a lack of a proof showing that the halting problem is
>>> undecidable does NOT imply that the halting problem is not
>>> undecidable; that still needs to be proven.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> It transforms what was previously thought to be known as a definite
>> limit to all computation into no known limit to computation. This is
>> huge.
>
> Mr Flibble is very cross.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOE7qTAK87o
>
> /Flibble
>
That was great.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 15:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) |
| Message-ID | <scd5vs$ude$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36098 |
On 7/10/2021 3:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:58:13 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: [...] >> It transforms what was previously thought to be known as a definite >> limit to all computation into no known limit to computation. This is >> huge. > > Mr Flibble is very cross. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOE7qTAK87o LOL!!! :^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sccsha$1aj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36070 |
olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> >>> The Halting Problem can only exist because >>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference. >> >> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a >> collection of proofs have a mistake. >> >> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is >> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: >> >> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and >> introduces the notion of computation by machine." >> >> /Flibble >> > > *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem* > At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the > undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey form, > are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs. > > [An impossible program] C. Strachey > The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, > https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 > > Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof. > https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf > I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published correction. > > If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't know > what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable. There is more than one proof. I was taught, not the the halting problem for TMs is unsolvable, but that the halting problem for register machines is unsolvable. The reason being, I suppose, that the course was taught by one of the inventors of the register machine. [There are a variety of register machines, this one had an unlimited number of registers and the instructions add 1 to register R, subtract 1 from register R (so long as it doesn't hold 0), if R doesn't hold 0 go to instruction i. See Shepherdson & Sturgis, 'Computability of recursive functions', /JACM/, vol 10, no 2, 1963, pp217-255.] > > Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture > > Busy Beaver only seems intractable not undecidable. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver > > > -- The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1c-dnetOgJPflnf9nZ2dnUU7-fHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36083 |
On 7/10/2021 2:30 PM, Peter wrote: > olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because >>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference. >>> >>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a >>> collection of proofs have a mistake. >>> >>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is >>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: >>> >>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and >>> introduces the notion of computation by machine." >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem* >> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the >> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey form, >> are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs. >> >> [An impossible program] C. Strachey >> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, >> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 >> >> Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof. >> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >> I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published >> correction. >> >> If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't know >> what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable. > > There is more than one proof. I was taught, not the the halting problem > for TMs is unsolvable, but that the halting problem for register > machines is unsolvable. The reason being, I suppose, that the course > was taught by one of the inventors of the register machine. [There are > a variety of register machines, this one had an unlimited number of > registers and the instructions All of the proofs seem to boil down to this one idea: An impossible program C. Strachey The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 > add 1 to register R, > subtract 1 from register R (so long as it doesn't hold 0), > if R doesn't hold 0 go to instruction i. > See Shepherdson & Sturgis, 'Computability of recursive functions', > /JACM/, vol 10, no 2, 1963, pp217-255.] > >> >> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >> >> Busy Beaver only seems intractable not undecidable. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver >> >> >> > > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 23:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <scd816$1htm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36091 |
olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2021 2:30 PM, Peter wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because >>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference. >>>> >>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a >>>> collection of proofs have a mistake. >>>> >>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is >>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: >>>> >>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and >>>> introduces the notion of computation by machine." >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>>> >>> >>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem* >>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the >>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey form, >>> are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs. >>> >>> [An impossible program] C. Strachey >>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, >>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 >>> >>> Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof. >>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>> I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published >>> correction. >>> >>> If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't know >>> what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable. >> >> There is more than one proof. I was taught, not the the halting >> problem for TMs is unsolvable, but that the halting problem for >> register machines is unsolvable. The reason being, I suppose, that >> the course was taught by one of the inventors of the register >> machine. [There are a variety of register machines, this one had an >> unlimited number of registers and the instructions > > All of the proofs seem to boil down to this one idea: > > An impossible program > C. Strachey > The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, > https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 And you know that how? Have you read _all_ of the proofs? >> add 1 to register R, >> subtract 1 from register R (so long as it doesn't hold 0), >> if R doesn't hold 0 go to instruction i. >> See Shepherdson & Sturgis, 'Computability of recursive functions', >> /JACM/, vol 10, no 2, 1963, pp217-255.] >> >>> >>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>> >>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable not undecidable. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 18:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <S82dnaVZZM8JsHf9nZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36102 |
On 7/10/2021 5:47 PM, Peter wrote: > olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2021 2:30 PM, Peter wrote: >>> olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because >>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference. >>>>> >>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a >>>>> collection of proofs have a mistake. >>>>> >>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is >>>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: >>>>> >>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and >>>>> introduces the notion of computation by machine." >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem* >>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the >>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey >>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs. >>>> >>>> [An impossible program] C. Strachey >>>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, >>>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 >>>> >>>> Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof. >>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>> I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published >>>> correction. >>>> >>>> If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't know >>>> what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable. >>> >>> There is more than one proof. I was taught, not the the halting >>> problem for TMs is unsolvable, but that the halting problem for >>> register machines is unsolvable. The reason being, I suppose, that >>> the course was taught by one of the inventors of the register >>> machine. [There are a variety of register machines, this one had an >>> unlimited number of registers and the instructions >> >> All of the proofs seem to boil down to this one idea: >> >> An impossible program >> C. Strachey >> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, >> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 > > And you know that how? Have you read _all_ of the proofs? > All of the textbooks have this same proof. As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set. >>> add 1 to register R, >>> subtract 1 from register R (so long as it doesn't hold 0), >>> if R doesn't hold 0 go to instruction i. >>> See Shepherdson & Sturgis, 'Computability of recursive functions', >>> /JACM/, vol 10, no 2, 1963, pp217-255.] >>> >>>> >>>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>> >>>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable not undecidable. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 02:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871r85zk8u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36105 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > All of the textbooks have this same proof. You have not even read the proper proof given in the textbook that you appear to have: "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by Peter Linz. > As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set. Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem, though he certainly knew it. His 1936 paper was not concerned with halting, but with defining "commutable numbers". I think it was Martin Davis who coined the term "halting problem", but his use of the terms is not what you would recognise, and the proof is entirely different. I don't know who first published a proof of the form you are so obsessed with. If anyone knows, I'd like to hear about it. Of course it comes in many guises, for Turing machines and other models like register machines (as I first encountered it), so maybe it was not originally given for TMs at all? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 19:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c496eace-302b-4814-a6f8-cd6758e2a010n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36112 |
On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 09:56:20 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > > > All of the textbooks have this same proof. > You have not even read the proper proof given in the textbook that you > appear to have: "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by > Peter Linz. > > As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set. > Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem, though he > certainly knew it. His 1936 paper was not concerned with halting, but > with defining "commutable numbers". > > I think it was Martin Davis who coined the term "halting problem", but > his use of the terms is not what you would recognise, and the proof is > entirely different. > > I don't know who first published a proof of the form you are so obsessed > with. If anyone knows, I'd like to hear about it. Of course it comes > in many guises, for Turing machines and other models like register > machines (as I first encountered it), so maybe it was not originally > given for TMs at all? > > -- > Ben. I have composed an axiom that clarifies the issue. I am convinced no one have ever said the same thing as General Undecidable Axioms says: +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk -- Copyright 2021 WIJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 03:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87k0lxy3wl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36114 |
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> writes: > I have composed an axiom that clarifies the issue. I am convinced no one > have ever said the same thing as General Undecidable Axioms says: > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P. | > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I'm also pretty sure no one has ever said that. What does it mean? In particular, what is a property of P that "can be defined by TM P"? May this is your way of stating Rice's Theorem? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41dbddcc-2720-4c9d-94a9-66c6f5f58ce7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36116 |
On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 10:34:36 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I have composed an axiom that clarifies the issue. I am convinced no one > > have ever said the same thing as General Undecidable Axioms says: > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > | No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P. | > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > I'm also pretty sure no one has ever said that. What does it mean? In > particular, what is a property of P that "can be defined by TM P"? May > this is your way of stating Rice's Theorem? > > -- > Ben. Examples are provided in https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk It is an axiom, intuitive enough, proof is not really necessary. -- Copyright 2021 WIJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 10:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wnpxw5vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36117 |
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 10:34:36 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I have composed an axiom that clarifies the issue. I am convinced no one >> > have ever said the same thing as General Undecidable Axioms says: >> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> > | No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P. | >> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> I'm also pretty sure no one has ever said that. What does it mean? In >> particular, what is a property of P that "can be defined by TM P"? May >> this is your way of stating Rice's Theorem? >> >> -- >> Ben. It's best not to quote sigs. > Examples are provided in > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk > It is an axiom, intuitive enough, proof is not really necessary. I was asking for an explanation of the words, but if you'd rather not explain it here, I'm quite happy with that. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-12 16:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b51d6df-dd31-4f0e-b50f-49c08d0813bbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36134 |
On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 17:34:53 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 10:34:36 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > I have composed an axiom that clarifies the issue. I am convinced no one > >> > have ever said the same thing as General Undecidable Axioms says: > >> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> > | No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P. | > >> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> I'm also pretty sure no one has ever said that. What does it mean? In > >> particular, what is a property of P that "can be defined by TM P"? May > >> this is your way of stating Rice's Theorem? > >> > >> -- > >> Ben. > It's best not to quote sigs. > > Examples are provided in > > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk > > It is an axiom, intuitive enough, proof is not really necessary. > I was asking for an explanation of the words, but if you'd rather not > explain it here, I'm quite happy with that. > > -- > Ben. Explanation is useless as you already see it. People just trims it in various ways to their like (or dislike). Thanks to his tireless efforts, olcott has successfully refuted all GUA like sub-proofs for me. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/65ZaXe9Sabk -- Copyright 2021 WIJ If I can see further it is by standing on top of the tower of dwarfs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 21:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ooCdnd_XEp4Dy3f9nZ2dnUU7-enNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36112 |
On 7/10/2021 8:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> All of the textbooks have this same proof.
>
> You have not even read the proper proof given in the textbook that you
> appear to have: "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by
> Peter Linz.
>
>> As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set.
>
> Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem, though he
> certainly knew it. His 1936 paper was not concerned with halting, but
> with defining "commutable numbers".
>
Yes numbers that live in New Jersey and go to work in New York city.
They commute to work.
> I think it was Martin Davis who coined the term "halting problem", but
> his use of the terms is not what you would recognise, and the proof is
> entirely different.
>
> I don't know who first published a proof of the form you are so obsessed
> with. If anyone knows, I'd like to hear about it. Of course it comes
> in many guises, for Turing machines and other models like register
> machines (as I first encountered it), so maybe it was not originally
> given for TMs at all?
>
This one is the the apparent forerunner to all of the pseudo-code proofs
and was written by the creator of the CPL programming language, the
ancestor to BCPL, B and C.
An impossible program C. Strachey
The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
*Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words*
Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
(or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
Consider the routine P defined as follows
rec routine P
§L:if T[P] go to L
Return §
If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
that the function T cannot exist.
Strachey is the creator of CPL ancestor to BCPL then B then C
His code above is written in his CPL programming language.
He was criticized in that his use of terminology is not precisely
correct by modern standards, yet apparently the essence of what he
conveyed is exactly correct.
I am happy to say that my C version works just fine:
// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
I will model my proof after Strachey instead of Linz, yet still
reference Linz.
_P()
[00000b66](01) 55 push ebp
[00000b67](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000b69](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b6c](01) 50 push eax
[00000b6d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000b70](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b71](05) e8f0fdffff call 00000966 // call H
[00000b76](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000b79](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000b7b](02) 7402 jz 00000b7f
[00000b7d](02) ebfe jmp 00000b7d
[00000b7f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000b80](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000b80]
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 10:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8735slxkji.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36115 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 7/10/2021 8:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> All of the textbooks have this same proof.
>> You have not even read the proper proof given in the textbook that you
>> appear to have: "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by
>> Peter Linz.
>>
>>> As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set.
>> Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem, though he
>> certainly knew it. His 1936 paper was not concerned with halting, but
>> with defining "commutable numbers".
>
> Yes numbers that live in New Jersey and go to work in New York
> city. They commute to work.
Noted. This how you want discuss the matter is it? I can do it too.
> I am happy to say that my C version works just fine:
Not according to you. H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts.
> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
Still hiding H, I see.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 22:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <scdsmg$4j8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36112 |
On 7/10/2021 7:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> All of the textbooks have this same proof. > > You have not even read the proper proof given in the textbook that you > appear to have: "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by > Peter Linz. > >> As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set. > > Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem, though he > certainly knew it. His 1936 paper was not concerned with halting, but > with defining "commutable numbers". > > I think it was Martin Davis who coined the term "halting problem", but > his use of the terms is not what you would recognise, and the proof is > entirely different. It was in the mid 1960s when Davis agreed to give a few of us 20 somethings a quick ad hoc class on this stuff. We got together an hour a day for a few weeks. To my 50+ year old recollection, the no-halting-machine proof he showed us was virtually identical to the one in the Linz book. > I don't know who first published a proof of the form you are so obsessed > with. If anyone knows, I'd like to hear about it. Of course it comes > in many guises, for Turing machines and other models like register > machines (as I first encountered it), so maybe it was not originally > given for TMs at all?-- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 10:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878s2dxkyu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36124 |
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > On 7/10/2021 7:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> All of the textbooks have this same proof. >> You have not even read the proper proof given in the textbook that you >> appear to have: "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by >> Peter Linz. >> >>> As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set. >> Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem, though he >> certainly knew it. His 1936 paper was not concerned with halting, but >> with defining "commutable numbers". >> I think it was Martin Davis who coined the term "halting problem", but >> his use of the terms is not what you would recognise, and the proof is >> entirely different. > > It was in the mid 1960s when Davis agreed to give a few of us 20 > somethings a quick ad hoc class on this stuff. We got together an hour > a day for a few weeks. To my 50+ year old recollection, the > no-halting-machine proof he showed us was virtually identical to the > one in the Linz book. Where was this? Was anything published? Did you get the feeling he was claiming the construction was his own invention? My feeling is that the idea embodied in the "usual" construction was just floating around as a rather obvious way to persuade those readers who don't like the more formal proofs that textbooks tended to use. This may be completely wrong, but since you were around at the time, maybe you can shed some light on it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 10:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <scf72q$8mk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36132 |
On 7/11/2021 3:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > >> On 7/10/2021 7:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> All of the textbooks have this same proof. >>> You have not even read the proper proof given in the textbook that you >>> appear to have: "An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by >>> Peter Linz. >>> >>>> As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set. >>> Turing never published a proof of the halting theorem, though he >>> certainly knew it. His 1936 paper was not concerned with halting, but >>> with defining "commutable numbers". >>> I think it was Martin Davis who coined the term "halting problem", but >>> his use of the terms is not what you would recognise, and the proof is >>> entirely different. >> >> It was in the mid 1960s when Davis agreed to give a few of us 20 >> somethings a quick ad hoc class on this stuff. We got together an hour >> a day for a few weeks. To my 50+ year old recollection, the >> no-halting-machine proof he showed us was virtually identical to the >> one in the Linz book. > > Where was this? Was anything published? Did you get the feeling he was > claiming the construction was his own invention? There was a nationally chartered nonprofit, the System Development Corporation, that was created from a chunk the RAND Corporation (RAND as in Santa Monica California, not Sperry Rand) in the late 1950s. SDC consisted of divisions of two sorts: those that experimented with development of large defense systems such as the early warning stuff on the DEW line in Canada to sense polar route attacks; other divisions were two for research and technology (all computer science). By the time I went there (early middle 1960s), the R&T divisions were major recipients of one of the DARPA block grants. SDC R&T did many things of interest to you, I think. For example: Seymour Ginsburg, Gene Rose, and Shelia Greibach were doing work in formal language theory. Seymour had a knack for identifying folks in the field who were about to pop something significant and finding funds so they could spend their sabbaticals at SDC so a ton of papers were published from there in formal language theory. In a more pragmatic vein, Erwin Book and Val Schorre developed early, industrial strength meta compilers one of which was used in early JOVIAL development. JOVIAL = Jules' Own Version of the International Algorithmic Language. Jules was the head of the T in R&T and his daughter, they lived next door, was my eldest`s first babysitter. Other developments in R&T were an industrial weight time sharing system that was working within a month of MIT's; early network experiments that lead to BBN and SDC being the only two invited to submit proposals for the original DARPA Net; I worked on something Called LISP 2 - supposed to mature LISP and combine it with some ALGOL ideas (Marvin Minsky and John McCarthy were official god fathers - Alan Perlis was step uncle); and there was what I called our Philosophy initiative that sponsored interesting visitors who stayed around for a while - Martin Davis and Yehoshua Bar-Hillel were examples here - I think this sprung from an interest in formal logic and automating theorem proving; early work in computational linguistics including a project to read and internalize the Golden Book Encyclopedia - they were still on the "Aardvark" entry and a fairly large speech understanding effort in the 1970s. My group consisted mostly college dropouts that were more concerned with computers, mathematics. and science then school. About half were MIT affiliated. We would visit Minsky and McCarthy every few months. We would usually take a red eye to Boston, go to the top of Tech Square were the "MAC Hackers" would meet us. The next day we would "play" with Minsky, see Seymour Papert and others for diner and generally catch up on what was going on in the world. That evening or the next we would find a land rover left for us by one of my colleague`s parents and drive through the night to New York were one of us was an NYU professor (not a dropout). On those drives we took turns presenting seminars on logic and general topics in CS. That was a good chunk of my "formal" education. In any event when we found Davis among us we descended on him en masse and demanded a class on everything he knew. He consented, partially, and we got him for a few weeks and took a tour of a fascinating world. He was quite into diagonal arguments; I think he thought they were pretty, easy to teach, and easy to understand (I don't think he every met PO). He followed good teaching practice and did not point out what was to his credit though he did mention many others by name. I think he decided that the group was motivated to learn and absorb the information and that the best he could do for us was introduce us to reusable techniques such as diagonalization and mini model theory (my terminology), and some of the foundational results. > My feeling is that the idea embodied in the "usual" construction was > just floating around as a rather obvious way to persuade those readers > who don't like the more formal proofs that textbooks tended to use. > This may be completely wrong, but since you were around at the time, > maybe you can shed some light on it. I think he used whatever proof amused him at the moment, at least for live people interactions. I think that as soon as Cantor's diagonal proof was circulated, there was an instant recognition in the community that this was a technique that could turn some god awful hard stuff into something a lot more people could grasp. Of course I wasn't around in the Cantor days but I think he thoroughly changed first guesses at how to prove things. I think in some ways the introduction of diagonal proofs was almost as important as defining equal size as 1-1 correspondence. One more thing, I don't think Davis had any love of "textbook style proofs", rather I think he enjoyed pretty mathematics. Sorry I rattled on for too long. However, that's how it came out and I don't have a motivation or time to shorten it. I haven't eaten breakfast yet and I'm hungry. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 13:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <scenld$mic$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36105 |
olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2021 5:47 PM, Peter wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2021 2:30 PM, Peter wrote: >>>> olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500 >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because >>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a >>>>>> collection of proofs have a mistake. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is >>>>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and >>>>>> introduces the notion of computation by machine." >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem* >>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the >>>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey >>>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs. >>>>> >>>>> [An impossible program] C. Strachey >>>>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, >>>>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 >>>>> >>>>> Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof. >>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf >>>>> I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published >>>>> correction. >>>>> >>>>> If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't >>>>> know what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable. >>>> >>>> There is more than one proof. I was taught, not the the halting >>>> problem for TMs is unsolvable, but that the halting problem for >>>> register machines is unsolvable. The reason being, I suppose, that >>>> the course was taught by one of the inventors of the register >>>> machine. [There are a variety of register machines, this one had an >>>> unlimited number of registers and the instructions >>> >>> All of the proofs seem to boil down to this one idea: >>> >>> An impossible program >>> C. Strachey >>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, >>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313 >> >> And you know that how? Have you read _all_ of the proofs? >> > > All of the textbooks have this same proof. You haven't read all the textbooks, and there are proofs in papers and lectures. The mention of Martin Davis downstream led me to his book /Computability and unsolvability/, McGraw-Hill 1958 (also recent Dover republication). He proves the unsolvability of the halting problem by noting that (exists y)T(x,x,y) is uncomputable (T being Kleene's T predicate). You seem not to know what you are talking about. > As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set. > >>>> add 1 to register R, >>>> subtract 1 from register R (so long as it doesn't hold 0), >>>> if R doesn't hold 0 go to instruction i. >>>> See Shepherdson & Sturgis, 'Computability of recursive functions', >>>> /JACM/, vol 10, no 2, 1963, pp217-255.] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>> >>>>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable not undecidable. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2Kednc_9FJoglHb9nZ2dnUU7-VXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #36136 |
On 7/11/2021 7:19 AM, Peter wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 7/10/2021 5:47 PM, Peter wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:30 PM, Peter wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a
>>>>>>> collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is
>>>>>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and
>>>>>>> introduces the notion of computation by machine."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
>>>>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
>>>>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [An impossible program] C. Strachey
>>>>>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof.
>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
>>>>>> I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published
>>>>>> correction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't
>>>>>> know what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is more than one proof. I was taught, not the the halting
>>>>> problem for TMs is unsolvable, but that the halting problem for
>>>>> register machines is unsolvable. The reason being, I suppose, that
>>>>> the course was taught by one of the inventors of the register
>>>>> machine. [There are a variety of register machines, this one had
>>>>> an unlimited number of registers and the instructions
>>>>
>>>> All of the proofs seem to boil down to this one idea:
>>>>
>>>> An impossible program
>>>> C. Strachey
>>>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
>>>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>>>
>>> And you know that how? Have you read _all_ of the proofs?
>>>
>>
>> All of the textbooks have this same proof.
>
> You haven't read all the textbooks, and there are proofs in papers and
> lectures. The mention of Martin Davis downstream led me to his book
> /Computability and unsolvability/, McGraw-Hill 1958 (also recent Dover
> republication). He proves the unsolvability of the halting problem by
> noting that (exists y)T(x,x,y) is uncomputable (T being Kleene's T
> predicate). You seem not to know what you are talking about.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27s_T_predicate
That Gödel numbering crap simply hides the pathological
self-reference(Olcott 2004) error behind so much complexity that it
can't be seen.
When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question. The
answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct answer
of “neither” making the question itself incorrect. The TM / input pairs
that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable have the same
pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the self-contradictory
liar paradox.
To eliminate this pathological feedback loop error we examine the
behavior of the input with a pure simulator that has no effect
what-so-ever on the behavior of the input. As correct science requires
the dependent variable (the halt status decision) must only have the
independent variable (the behavior of the input) and be isolated from
all other influences. Only when we do it this way do we get the correct
halt status decision for the input.
Until the behavior of its input proves that it will never halt every H
remains a pure simulator of this input. This single fact by itself
proves that the behavior of H has no effect what-so-ever on its halt
status decision. When H stops simulating its input the execution of the
input has been suspended, this does not count as halting.
>> As long as the Turing proof is based on the same idea I am set.
>>
>>>>> add 1 to register R,
>>>>> subtract 1 from register R (so long as it doesn't hold 0),
>>>>> if R doesn't hold 0 go to instruction i.
>>>>> See Shepherdson & Sturgis, 'Computability of recursive functions',
>>>>> /JACM/, vol 10, no 2, 1963, pp217-255.]
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goldbach's Conjecture is merely undecided and thus not undecidable.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Busy Beaver only seems intractable not undecidable.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-11 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <scf991$1vva$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36147 |
olcott wrote:
> On 7/11/2021 7:19 AM, Peter wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2021 5:47 PM, Peter wrote:
>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/2021 2:30 PM, Peter wrote:
>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:08:02 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem can only exist because
>>>>>>>>> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ^ that is your mistake: the halting problem still exists even if a
>>>>>>>> collection of proofs have a mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does [Turing 1937] rely on a decider being part of that which is
>>>>>>>> being decided? Wikipedia suggests not:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Turing's proof departs from calculation by recursive functions and
>>>>>>>> introduces the notion of computation by machine."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I agree that I have not solved the halting problem*
>>>>>>> At most I have only proved that the conventional proofs of the
>>>>>>> undecidability of the halting problem that rely on the Strachey
>>>>>>> form, are incorrect. This seems to include all textbook proofs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [An impossible program] C. Strachey
>>>>>>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
>>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now seems to be a good time to finally look at the Turing proof.
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
>>>>>>> I am not sure if the above linked copy has the later published
>>>>>>> correction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Turing proof is isomorphic to the Strachey form, I don't
>>>>>>> know what it left to prove that the halting problem is undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is more than one proof. I was taught, not the the halting
>>>>>> problem for TMs is unsolvable, but that the halting problem for
>>>>>> register machines is unsolvable. The reason being, I suppose,
>>>>>> that the course was taught by one of the inventors of the register
>>>>>> machine. [There are a variety of register machines, this one had
>>>>>> an unlimited number of registers and the instructions
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the proofs seem to boil down to this one idea:
>>>>>
>>>>> An impossible program
>>>>> C. Strachey
>>>>> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>>>>
>>>> And you know that how? Have you read _all_ of the proofs?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of the textbooks have this same proof.
>>
>> You haven't read all the textbooks, and there are proofs in papers and
>> lectures. The mention of Martin Davis downstream led me to his book
>> /Computability and unsolvability/, McGraw-Hill 1958 (also recent Dover
>> republication). He proves the unsolvability of the halting problem by
>> noting that (exists y)T(x,x,y) is uncomputable (T being Kleene's T
>> predicate). You seem not to know what you are talking about.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27s_T_predicate
>
> That Gödel numbering crap simply hides the pathological
> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error behind so much complexity that it
> can't be seen.
>
> When we ask what Boolean value can a halt decider return to an input
> that changes its behavior to contradict this value we cannot answer this
> question because it is an incorrect type mismatch error question. The
> answer is restricted to {true, false} thus excluding the correct answer
> of “neither” making the question itself incorrect. The TM / input pairs
> that “prove” the halting problem is undecidable have the same
> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error as the self-contradictory
> liar paradox.
>
> To eliminate this pathological feedback loop error we examine the
> behavior of the input with a pure simulator that has no effect
> what-so-ever on the behavior of the input. As correct science requires
> the dependent variable (the halt status decision) must only have the
> independent variable (the behavior of the input) and be isolated from
> all other influences. Only when we do it this way do we get the correct
> halt status decision for the input.
>
> Until the behavior of its input proves that it will never halt every H
> remains a pure simulator of this input. This single fact by itself
> proves that the behavior of H has no effect what-so-ever on its halt
> status decision. When H stops simulating its input the execution of the
> input has been suspended, this does not count as halting.
>
Why are you ignoring the Davis proof that I referred to?
--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web