Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #103826 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 263 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-17 23:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:31 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 20:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 21:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 21:25 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 22:50 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 22:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:18 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:05 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:11 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:40 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 15:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:19 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 13:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:16 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:20 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 01:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 08:56 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 11:39 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 10:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 20:49 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 23:38 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:56 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:02 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 14:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:19 -0400
D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 20:26 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 20:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 22:18 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 22:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 23:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 23:07 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 07:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 09:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 12:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 15:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 14:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:24 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 16:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:56 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 18:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:29 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:16 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:40 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 11:52 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:43 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:55 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:54 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:38 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 17:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 22:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 10:56 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:11 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:06 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 14:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 15:34 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 17:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 12:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 11:31 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:15 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 13:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 16:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 16:18 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 17:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 17:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 18:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 19:32 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:07 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 21:05 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 20:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 22:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 22:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-05 12:36 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:00 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 15:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:27 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 16:57 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-05 13:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:41 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:33 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 15:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 15:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:57 -0400
your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:38 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:05 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:27 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:53 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:06 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:50 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 07:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 10:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:01 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:51 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-05 09:33 +0100
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 10:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 17:28 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:11 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:12 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:58 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 12:39 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:41 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:15 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:22 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:48 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:10 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:55 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 00:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 07:34 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:51 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:23 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 14:04 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 16:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:39 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 00:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 07:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 12:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:37 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:42 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 14:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 17:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 16:38 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 19:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 21:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 23:35 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 07:35 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 22:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:09 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 12:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 10:45 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 13:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-20 11:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- |
| Message-ID | <v00nkf$1m94c$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103853 |
On 4/20/24 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>
>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means that
>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and
>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is complete
>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>
>
> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
> is basically invalid input.
>
In other words, you admit that you are being inconsistant about what you
are saying, because your whole logic system is just inconsistant.
You don't seem to understand that predicates, DEFINED to be able to work
on ALL memebers of the input domain, must IN FACT, work on all members
of that domain.
For a Halt Decider, that means the decider needs to be able to answer
about ANY machine given to it as an input, even a machine that uses a
copy of the decider and acts contrary to its answer.
If you are going to work on a different problem, you need to be honest
about that and not LIE and say you are working on the Halting Problem.
And, if you are going to talk about a "Truth Predicate", which is
defined to be able to take ANY "statement" and say if it is True or not,
with "nonsense" statements (be they self-contradictory statements, or
just nonsense) being just not-true.
ANY statement means any statement, so if we define this predicate as
True(F, x) to be true if x is a statement that is true in the field F,
then we need to be able to give this predicate the statemet:
In F de define s as NOT True(F, s)
If you claim that your logic is ACTUALLY "two-valued" then if True(F,s)
returns false, because s is a statement without a truth value, then we
have the problem that the definition of s now says that s has the value
of NOT false, which is True.
So, the True predicate was WRONG, as True of a statement that IS true,
must be true.
If True(F,s) is true, then we have that s is not defined as NOT true,
which is false, so the True predicate is again WRONG.
The predicate isn't ALLOWED to say "I reject this input" as that isn't a
truth value (since you claimed you are actually useing a two-valued
logic) and this predicate is defined to ALWAYS return a truth value.
So, it seems you have a two-valued logic system with three logical values.
Which is just A LIE!
You are just proving you are too stupid to understand what you are
talking about as you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using, as you just studied the system by Zero order principles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 10:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- |
| Message-ID | <v03b7r$c3h7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103854 |
On 4/20/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/20/24 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>
>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means that
>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and
>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is complete
>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>
>>
>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
>> is basically invalid input.
>>
>
> In other words, you admit that you are being inconsistant about what you
> are saying, because your whole logic system is just inconsistant.
>
Not at all.
An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that
neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and
not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208)
The notion of incompleteness and undecidability requires non truth
bearers to be construed as truth bearers.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
bearer of truth or falsity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
When we quit construing expressions that cannot possibly be true or
false as propositions then incompleteness and undecidability cease to
exist.
On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
> are true.
Truth_Bearer(F, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ F ((F ⊢ x) ∨ (F ⊢ ¬x))
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
Gödel is essentially saying that expressions that are not propositions
prove that a formal system of propositions has undecidable propositions.
> You don't seem to understand that predicates, DEFINED to be able to work
> on ALL memebers of the input domain, must IN FACT, work on all members
> of that domain.
>
> For a Halt Decider, that means the decider needs to be able to answer
> about ANY machine given to it as an input, even a machine that uses a
> copy of the decider and acts contrary to its answer.
>
> If you are going to work on a different problem, you need to be honest
> about that and not LIE and say you are working on the Halting Problem.
>
> And, if you are going to talk about a "Truth Predicate", which is
> defined to be able to take ANY "statement" and say if it is True or not,
> with "nonsense" statements (be they self-contradictory statements, or
> just nonsense) being just not-true.
>
> ANY statement means any statement, so if we define this predicate as
> True(F, x) to be true if x is a statement that is true in the field F,
> then we need to be able to give this predicate the statemet:
>
> In F de define s as NOT True(F, s)
>
>
> If you claim that your logic is ACTUALLY "two-valued" then if True(F,s)
> returns false, because s is a statement without a truth value, then we
> have the problem that the definition of s now says that s has the value
> of NOT false, which is True.
>
> So, the True predicate was WRONG, as True of a statement that IS true,
> must be true.
>
> If True(F,s) is true, then we have that s is not defined as NOT true,
> which is false, so the True predicate is again WRONG.
>
> The predicate isn't ALLOWED to say "I reject this input" as that isn't a
> truth value (since you claimed you are actually useing a two-valued
> logic) and this predicate is defined to ALWAYS return a truth value.
>
> So, it seems you have a two-valued logic system with three logical values.
>
> Which is just A LIE!
>
> You are just proving you are too stupid to understand what you are
> talking about as you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
> using, as you just studied the system by Zero order principles.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 12:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- |
| Message-ID | <v03g8u$1q6th$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103868 |
On 4/21/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/20/24 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>
>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means that
>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and
>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is complete
>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you admit that you are being inconsistant about what
>> you are saying, because your whole logic system is just inconsistant.
>>
>
>
> Not at all.
> An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that
> neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and
> not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208)
>
> The notion of incompleteness and undecidability requires non truth
> bearers to be construed as truth bearers.
Nope, and you stating that just proves your stupidity.
A Theory K will define its "language" and what statements it accepts
within it. Normally that "language" excludes non-truth-bearers. This
seems to be something outside your understanding, as you don't seem to
understand anything about the nature of actual FORMAL logic systems, but
seem to be stuck
Yes, non-truth bearing statements will be undecidable,
>
> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
> bearer of truth or falsity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>
> When we quit construing expressions that cannot possibly be true or
> false as propositions then incompleteness and undecidability cease to
> exist.
Nope. There exist statements that are True, in that they have an
(infinite) sequence of connections from the truth makers of the system
to the statement, but are not provable, as there is no FINITE sequence
of connections that do so.
Godel's G is an example of this, stating that there does not exist a
number that matches a specific property. Since the property is
computable for all numbers, we know that G must be a truth bearer, as
either such a number exists, or it doesn't exist.
This fact can be established in F, as either it is false, because we CAN
find such a number, and the checking of the number with the relationship
provides a definite proof that G is false, or no such number exists, and
this is established by the INFINITE chain of checking every number, and
seeing that none satisfies it.
We happen to be able to reduce that infinite chain to be finite in a
partitulare meta-theory of F that understands a hidden meaning in the
relationship, and allows us to PROVE that no such number exists.
This PROVES that G is a true statement. While the proof is in Meta-F,
the proof also establishes that G is true in F.
>
> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
> > are true.
>
> Truth_Bearer(F, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ F ((F ⊢ x) ∨ (F ⊢ ¬x))
Nope, not PROVES, but ESTABLISHES.
Truth_Bearer(F, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ F ((F ⊨ x) ∨ (F ⊨ ¬x))
Truth Bearing allows for the INFINTE sequence to establish the fact,
even if that can not be a proof of it.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
Yep, you can build another proof just like the one presented based on
any epistemological antinomy. Note, the proof USES the antinomy, but
does not "derive" from it, in that its validity and soundness are not
based on the truth of the antinomy.
You don't seem to understand the syntactic transformation that was done
on the statement at the beginning, that created a NEW PROPOSITION, that
turns out to be a Truth Bearer.
"X says that X is not True in F", is an epistemological antinomy.
"X says that X is not Provable in F" is not, as the logical valuation of
X being True but not Provable is a possible valid combination of states.
>
> Gödel is essentially saying that expressions that are not propositions
> prove that a formal system of propositions has undecidable propositions.
>
Nope.
Since you don't understand what Godel did, you are just showing you
stupidity by making your claim.
That you persist is making the claim after being shown to be wrong, make
you just a stupid pathological liar, and proves you just don't
understand what Truth actually is.
>> You don't seem to understand that predicates, DEFINED to be able to
>> work on ALL memebers of the input domain, must IN FACT, work on all
>> members of that domain.
>>
>> For a Halt Decider, that means the decider needs to be able to answer
>> about ANY machine given to it as an input, even a machine that uses a
>> copy of the decider and acts contrary to its answer.
>>
>> If you are going to work on a different problem, you need to be honest
>> about that and not LIE and say you are working on the Halting Problem.
>>
>> And, if you are going to talk about a "Truth Predicate", which is
>> defined to be able to take ANY "statement" and say if it is True or
>> not, with "nonsense" statements (be they self-contradictory
>> statements, or just nonsense) being just not-true.
>>
>> ANY statement means any statement, so if we define this predicate as
>> True(F, x) to be true if x is a statement that is true in the field F,
>> then we need to be able to give this predicate the statemet:
>>
>> In F de define s as NOT True(F, s)
>>
>>
>> If you claim that your logic is ACTUALLY "two-valued" then if
>> True(F,s) returns false, because s is a statement without a truth
>> value, then we have the problem that the definition of s now says that
>> s has the value of NOT false, which is True.
>>
>> So, the True predicate was WRONG, as True of a statement that IS true,
>> must be true.
>>
>> If True(F,s) is true, then we have that s is not defined as NOT true,
>> which is false, so the True predicate is again WRONG.
>>
>> The predicate isn't ALLOWED to say "I reject this input" as that isn't
>> a truth value (since you claimed you are actually useing a two-valued
>> logic) and this predicate is defined to ALWAYS return a truth value.
>>
>> So, it seems you have a two-valued logic system with three logical
>> values.
>>
>> Which is just A LIE!
>>
>> You are just proving you are too stupid to understand what you are
>> talking about as you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
>> using, as you just studied the system by Zero order principles.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 09:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- |
| Message-ID | <v038om$bitp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103853 |
On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>
>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means that
>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and
>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is complete
>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>
>>
>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
>> is basically invalid input.
>
> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. Therefore you
> don't need any teaching device.
>
That is too close to ad homimen.
If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
> As you make the syntax of your language dependent on semantics
> you lose one of the greatest advantage of formal languages:
> the simplicity of determination whether a string is a well formed
> formula.
>
Not at all. By combining them together we can simultaneously determine
syntactic and semantic correctness. By keeping them separate we have
misconstrued expressions that are not even propositions as propositions
that prove incompleteness and undecidability.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
bearer of truth or falsity. Propositions are also often characterized as
being the kind of thing that declarative sentences denote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-22 09:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- |
| Message-ID | <v05r5e$vvml$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103866 |
On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>
>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means that
>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and
>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is complete
>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>
>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. Therefore you
>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>
>>
>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>
> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of discussion so
> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>
> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or otherwise.
>
If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is wrong with
the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is essentially
an as hominem attack.
>>> As you make the syntax of your language dependent on semantics
>>> you lose one of the greatest advantage of formal languages:
>>> the simplicity of determination whether a string is a well formed
>>> formula.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. By combining them together we can simultaneously determine
>> syntactic and semantic correctness. By keeping them separate we have
>> misconstrued expressions that are not even propositions as propositions
>> that prove incompleteness and undecidability.
>
> You have not shown that you can determine either semantic or syntactic
> correctness.
>
That is more direct ad hominem.
I claim that the error of logic is that it diverges from semantics
and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ proves
that I am correct about this and fixed the problem.
>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>> bearer of truth or falsity. Propositions are also often characterized as
>> being the kind of thing that declarative sentences denote.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>
> Therefore it were easier if you could easily check whether a particular
> string is a proposition or a sequence or propositions.
>
We construe this
Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
As this
Proposition(F, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ F ((F ⊢ x) ∨ (F ⊢ ¬x))
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 10:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0b8np$2d4ja$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103889 |
On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. Therefore you
>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of discussion so
>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is wrong with
>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>
>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But that
>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems separately
>>> in the two areas.
>>>
>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to construe
>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>> understand.
>>>
>>> People working on computability theory do not understand "invalid input"
>>> as "impossible input".
>>
>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some input,
>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this
>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>
>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>
> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>
Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
the halting problem proof is wrong.
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly determines
the halt status of its inputs say that believe that H(D,D) must report
on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
They say this knowing full well that computable functions only operate
on their inputs. This also violates the definition of a decider that
only computes the mapping from its inputs. Thus expecting H(D,D) to
report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D) violates two core
principles of of computer science.
Finally the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its
simulation is different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H
has aborted its simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it
actually sees.
>>> They understand it as an input that must be
>>> handled differently from ordinary input. Likewise, mathematicians do
>>> understand that some inputs must be considered separately and
>>> differently.
>>> But mathematicians don't call those inputs "invalid".
>
>> It is so dead obvious that the whole world must be wired with a short
>> circuit in their brains. Formal bivalent mathematical systems of logic
>> must reject every expression that cannot possibly have a value of true
>> or false as a type mismatch error.
>
> Gödel's completeness theorem proves that every consistent first order
> theory has a model, i.e., there is an interpretation that assigns a
> truth value to every formula of the theory. No such proof is known for
> second or higher order theories.
>
By switching from model theory to proof theory we need no
interpretations. Every system of logic is simply relations
between finite strings.
To get rid of undecidability and incompleteness we simply encode all of
the facts of the general knowledge of the actual world as axioms of a
formal system of logic.
True(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ L (L ⊢ x)
False(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ L (L ⊢ x)
Truth_Bearer(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ L (True(L, x) ∨ False(L, x))
>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>> bearer of truth or falsity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>
> In formal logic the corresponding concept is sentence.
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 19:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0c317$2538n$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103896 |
On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of discussion so
>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is wrong
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>
>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But that
>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems separately
>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>
>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to construe
>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand "invalid
>>>> input"
>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>
>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some input,
>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this
>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>
>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>
>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>
>
> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>
> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly determines
> the halt status of its inputs say that believe that H(D,D) must report
> on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
To say otherwise just proves you don't actually know the meanings of the
words you are using.
>
> They say this knowing full well that computable functions only operate
> on their inputs. This also violates the definition of a decider that
> only computes the mapping from its inputs. Thus expecting H(D,D) to
> report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D) violates two core
> principles of of computer science.
Nope, and the fact you think so shows you don't understand those core
principles.
>
> Finally the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its
> simulation is different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H
> has aborted its simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it
> actually sees.
Nope, BECAUSE the definition of "Correct Simulation" of a Program
Description is replicating the behavior of the direct execution of the
program.
>
>>>> They understand it as an input that must be
>>>> handled differently from ordinary input. Likewise, mathematicians do
>>>> understand that some inputs must be considered separately and
>>>> differently.
>>>> But mathematicians don't call those inputs "invalid".
>>
>>> It is so dead obvious that the whole world must be wired with a short
>>> circuit in their brains. Formal bivalent mathematical systems of logic
>>> must reject every expression that cannot possibly have a value of true
>>> or false as a type mismatch error.
>>
>> Gödel's completeness theorem proves that every consistent first order
>> theory has a model, i.e., there is an interpretation that assigns a
>> truth value to every formula of the theory. No such proof is known for
>> second or higher order theories.
>>
>
> By switching from model theory to proof theory we need no
> interpretations. Every system of logic is simply relations
> between finite strings.
>
> To get rid of undecidability and incompleteness we simply encode all of
> the facts of the general knowledge of the actual world as axioms of a
> formal system of logic.
Which doesn't help at all if the system isn't supposed to be a "model"
of the actual world. (and most Formal Logic systems are not).
And that also, doesn't handle the problem, as Godel proves. A Formal
System needs a finite set of axioms, which your above will have, as our
knowledge WILL be finite. And your system will meet the logical power
requirements. (I suppose the one question is if it meets the consistancy
requirement, it is actually quite possible that the some total of
everything we THINK is true might have an error in it that makes the
system inconsistant, or your method of accumulating "All Knowledge"
might not be able to keep the different contradictory sub-fields
distinct enough to keep them apart, like Euclidean Geometry and
non-Euclidean Geometry)
This means we CAN form the meta-system that assigns ALL those axioms to
a prime number, and thus we can encode all statements to a composite
number, and build the Primiative Recursive Relationship that represents
the proof checker for his statement G in your logic system, and thus we
can show that G MUST be true (or your system is inconsistent as we can
prove a false statement with the value of g that satisfies that
relationship), and thus there can not be a proof for G in the system, or
a true statement is false.
We fundamentally know that a number g that satisfies the PRR either will
exist or will not.
And, your proposal also shows that you just don't understand the basis
of formal logic.
>
> True(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ L (L ⊢ x)
> False(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ L (L ⊢ x)
> Truth_Bearer(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ L (True(L, x) ∨ False(L, x))
And since you definitions do not match the definitions of classical
logic (where Truth isn't defined by Proof, but by establishment, which
allows for infinite chains of steps which proof doesn't) this mean you
have to start from ground zero to show what your new system can do.
GOOD LUCK, you will need it.
I don't think you have the knowledge base to do it, or the time.
Without doing that, all you are doing is making UNPROVEN claims, and
doing exactly the same thing as the election deniers are doing.
>
>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>>> bearer of truth or falsity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>
>> In formal logic the corresponding concept is sentence.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 19:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0c7fn$2k0tc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103898 |
On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. Therefore
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of discussion so
>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is wrong
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But that
>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems separately
>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>> construe
>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand "invalid
>>>>> input"
>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>
>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some input,
>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically do the
>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles this
>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>
>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>
>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>
>>
>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>
>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that H(D,D)
>> must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>
> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>
Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
required to determine the halt status of the program that
invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
All these same people also know the computable functions only
operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
else.
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
When the definition of a halt decider contradicts the definition of
a computable function they can't both be right.
> To say otherwise just proves you don't actually know the meanings of the
> words you are using.
>
>
>>
>> They say this knowing full well that computable functions only operate
>> on their inputs. This also violates the definition of a decider that
>> only computes the mapping from its inputs. Thus expecting H(D,D) to
>> report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D) violates two
>> core principles of of computer science.
>
>
> Nope, and the fact you think so shows you don't understand those core
> principles.
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 20:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0c9bl$2538o$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103899 |
On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of discussion so
>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But that
>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems separately
>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>>> construe
>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand "invalid
>>>>>> input"
>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>
>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some
>>>>> input,
>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically do
>>>>> the
>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles
>>>>> this
>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>
>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>
>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>
>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that H(D,D)
>>> must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>
>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>
>
> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
> required to determine the halt status of the program that
> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program described
by it input.
What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>
> All these same people also know the computable functions only
> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
> else.
First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function" and
in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided on, so
that IS the input.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>
> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
Right, so *IF* you can create the algorithm that can compute the mapping
defined by the Halting Function, for EVERY input, then you can show it
to be computable.
>
> When the definition of a halt decider contradicts the definition of
> a computable function they can't both be right.
>
But sincd the question is if the Halting Function is, in fact,
computable, the fact that you can't create a function that meets the
definition is just a proof that the answer to the question is NO, the
Halting Function is not computable.
>> To say otherwise just proves you don't actually know the meanings of
>> the words you are using.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> They say this knowing full well that computable functions only
>>> operate on their inputs. This also violates the definition of a
>>> decider that only computes the mapping from its inputs. Thus
>>> expecting H(D,D) to report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes
>>> H(D,D) violates two core principles of of computer science.
>>
>>
>> Nope, and the fact you think so shows you don't understand those core
>> principles.
>
> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
>
Which just proves you don't understand what you are talking about, and
like to post LIES. Your many errors have been pointed out in the past,
but since it is clear you don't understnd, or accdept, the defined
definitions, you are just incapbable of understanding the errors.
The biggest part of the problem seems to be your REFUSAL to even attempt
to learn the basic language of the field, but work off your "First
Principles" analysis that is actually not based on the "First
Principles" of the field, so are really just Zeroth Principles that are
just total misconceptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 19:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0c9pi$2k7vk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103900 |
On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you
>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems separately
>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>>>> construe
>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand "invalid
>>>>>>> input"
>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some
>>>>>> input,
>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically
>>>>>> do the
>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>
>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>
> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>
> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program described
> by it input.
>
> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>
>>
>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>> else.
>
> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function" and
> in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
>
> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided on, so
> that IS the input.
>
> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>
Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
These same people already know that the program that invokes
the decider is definitely not its input.
These same people also know that computable functions only
operate on their inputs.
So they are simply contradicting their own views by not paying attention.
>>
>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> Right, so *IF* you can create the algorithm that can compute the mapping
> defined by the Halting Function, for EVERY input, then you can show it
> to be computable.
>
>>
>> When the definition of a halt decider contradicts the definition of
>> a computable function they can't both be right.
>>
>
> But sincd the question is if the Halting Function is, in fact,
> computable, the fact that you can't create a function that meets the
> definition is just a proof that the answer to the question is NO, the
> Halting Function is not computable.
>
>>> To say otherwise just proves you don't actually know the meanings of
>>> the words you are using.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They say this knowing full well that computable functions only
>>>> operate on their inputs. This also violates the definition of a
>>>> decider that only computes the mapping from its inputs. Thus
>>>> expecting H(D,D) to report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes
>>>> H(D,D) violates two core principles of of computer science.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, and the fact you think so shows you don't understand those core
>>> principles.
>>
>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>>
>
> Which just proves you don't understand what you are talking about, and
> like to post LIES. Your many errors have been pointed out in the past,
> but since it is clear you don't understnd, or accdept, the defined
> definitions, you are just incapbable of understanding the errors.
>
> The biggest part of the problem seems to be your REFUSAL to even attempt
> to learn the basic language of the field, but work off your "First
> Principles" analysis that is actually not based on the "First
> Principles" of the field, so are really just Zeroth Principles that are
> just total misconceptions.
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 22:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0cdfo$2538n$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103901 |
On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you
>>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>>>>> construe
>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some
>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically
>>>>>>> do the
>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>
>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>
>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>
>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program described
>> by it input.
>>
>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>
>>>
>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>> else.
>>
>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function"
>> and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
>>
>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided on,
>> so that IS the input.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>
>
> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
Why?
Why can't you describe that program?
If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't handle
ALL possible inputs.
>
> These same people already know that the program that invokes
> the decider is definitely not its input.
But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>
> These same people also know that computable functions only
> operate on their inputs.
Again, why do you FALSELY assume the function is computable?
Or why that desciption isn't the description of the program that calls H?
>
> So they are simply contradicting their own views by not paying attention.
Nope, YOU are the one with the contradiction.
You claim H meets the requirements, which means that it should be able
to decide about any program described by its input, and that you can
describe and program, but then say that this program can't be given to
your decider.
That is just admitting that you have been lying.
It seems, that again, you just don't understand the meaning of the terms
you are using, and just falsely accuse anything that doesn't make sense
to you as incorrect.
That just proves that you are utter ignorant about what you are talking
about and have made yourself into a pathological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 21:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0ced1$2p5gu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103902 |
On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you
>>>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that.
>>>>>>>>> But that
>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>>>>>> construe
>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine
>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some
>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically
>>>>>>>> do the
>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>
>>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>>
>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program
>>> described by it input.
>>>
>>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>> else.
>>>
>>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function"
>>> and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
>>>
>>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided on,
>>> so that IS the input.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>>
>>
>> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
>> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
>
>
> Why?
>
> Why can't you describe that program?
>
The x86 code is the only description finite string input that H is
allowed to have.
> If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't handle
> ALL possible inputs.
>
The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND YOU KNOW THAT!
>>
>> These same people already know that the program that invokes
>> the decider is definitely not its input.
>
> But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>
The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
>>
>> These same people also know that computable functions only
>> operate on their inputs.
>
> Again, why do you FALSELY assume the function is computable?
>
Requiring a computation to report on the behavior its its caller
is computationally incorrect. COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!!!
> Or why that desciption isn't the description of the program that calls H?
>
>>
>> So they are simply contradicting their own views by not paying attention.
>
> Nope, YOU are the one with the contradiction.
>
> You claim H meets the requirements, which means that it should be able
> to decide about any program described by its input, and that you can
> describe and program, but then say that this program can't be given to
> your decider.
>
> That is just admitting that you have been lying.
>
> It seems, that again, you just don't understand the meaning of the terms
> you are using, and just falsely accuse anything that doesn't make sense
> to you as incorrect.
>
> That just proves that you are utter ignorant about what you are talking
> about and have made yourself into a pathological liar.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 23:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0cj7d$2538o$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103903 |
On 4/24/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you
>>>>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that.
>>>>>>>>>> But that
>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>>>>>>> construe
>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine
>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with
>>>>>>>>> some input,
>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then
>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does
>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>>
>>>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>>>
>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program
>>>> described by it input.
>>>>
>>>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function"
>>>> and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
>>>>
>>>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided
>>>> on, so that IS the input.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
>>> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Why can't you describe that program?
>>
>
> The x86 code is the only description finite string input that H is
> allowed to have.
And either that can describe the full program D(D), or you are just
admitting that H fails to be a Halt Decider by its own limitations.
Remember, the REQUIREMENTS prevail, if you somehow restrict H so you can
not describe some programs to it, then H BY DEFINITION fails to be the
needed decider.
>
>> If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't
>> handle ALL possible inputs.
>>
>
> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND YOU KNOW THAT!
Why not? The x86 code given to H it the code for it, at least if you
include ALL the x86 code of the full program D.
If YOU decided to not give it enough of the description, then you are
just admitting to LYING about what you are doing.
>
>>>
>>> These same people already know that the program that invokes
>>> the decider is definitely not its input.
>>
>> But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>>
>
> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
Nope. If H is the required computation, then D is also a computation,
and all copies of it behave the same.
I guess you are just admitting that you your logic system determinism
doesn't exist, and thus a given statement might be both True or False at
the same or diffferent times. In other words, you are describe a system
without a real definiton of Truth,
That seems right for what you have described.
>
> the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
> simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
Then the simulation is INCORRECT, PERIOD, BY DEFINITION.
THis is because the DEFINITION of a correct simulation is the behavior
of the actual program.
In fact, when you describe the "simulation" your program does, it
doesn't actually simulate a "Call H instruction", but instead used
INVALID and UNSOUND logic to try to "guess" what that behavior will be.
Thus, your claim of different behavior of simulation is just a LIE.
>
>>>
>>> These same people also know that computable functions only
>>> operate on their inputs.
>>
>> Again, why do you FALSELY assume the function is computable?
>>
>
> Requiring a computation to report on the behavior its its caller
> is computationally incorrect. COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!!!
But it isn't asked to report on the behavior of its caller, it is asked
to report on the behavior of the program given described by its input.
If that just happens to its caller, there is nothing wrong with giving
the answer about what it will do, and in fact, that is what it MUST do.
Yes, you can not phrase the question as the behavior of its caller, but
if you make the input describe the caller, than that is what it must
answer about, as that is what its input is.
You just keep on trying to lie by changing the words, a typical
technique of LIARS.
All you are doing is proving that you don't understand what computations
are, how computers work, or even how logic works.
>
>> Or why that desciption isn't the description of the program that calls H?
>>
>>>
>>> So they are simply contradicting their own views by not paying
>>> attention.
>>
>> Nope, YOU are the one with the contradiction.
>>
>> You claim H meets the requirements, which means that it should be able
>> to decide about any program described by its input, and that you can
>> describe and program, but then say that this program can't be given to
>> your decider.
>>
>> That is just admitting that you have been lying.
>>
>> It seems, that again, you just don't understand the meaning of the
>> terms you are using, and just falsely accuse anything that doesn't
>> make sense to you as incorrect.
>>
>> That just proves that you are utter ignorant about what you are
>> talking about and have made yourself into a pathological liar.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 22:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0ck3v$2q2p1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103904 |
On 4/24/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that.
>>>>>>>>>>> But that
>>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem
>>>>>>>>>>>> to construe
>>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would
>>>>>>>>>>>> totally understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine
>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with
>>>>>>>>>> some input,
>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then
>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>>>>
>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program
>>>>> described by it input.
>>>>>
>>>>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>>>> else.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function"
>>>>> and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided
>>>>> on, so that IS the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
>>>> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Why can't you describe that program?
>>>
>>
>> The x86 code is the only description finite string input that H is
>> allowed to have.
>
> And either that can describe the full program D(D), or you are just
> admitting that H fails to be a Halt Decider by its own limitations.
>
> Remember, the REQUIREMENTS prevail, if you somehow restrict H so you can
> not describe some programs to it, then H BY DEFINITION fails to be the
> needed decider.
>
>
>>
>>> If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't
>>> handle ALL possible inputs.
>>>
>>
>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND YOU KNOW THAT!
>
> Why not? The x86 code given to H it the code for it, at least if you
> include ALL the x86 code of the full program D.
>
> If YOU decided to not give it enough of the description, then you are
> just admitting to LYING about what you are doing.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> These same people already know that the program that invokes
>>>> the decider is definitely not its input.
>>>
>>> But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>>>
>>
>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
>
> Nope. If H is the required computation, then D is also a computation,
> and all copies of it behave the same.
The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
simulation.
different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
simulation.
different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
simulation.
H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
>
> I guess you are just admitting that you your logic system determinism
> doesn't exist, and thus a given statement might be both True or False at
> the same or diffferent times. In other words, you are describe a system
> without a real definiton of Truth,
>
> That seems right for what you have described.
>
>
>>
>> the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
>> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
>> simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
>
> Then the simulation is INCORRECT, PERIOD, BY DEFINITION.
>
> THis is because the DEFINITION of a correct simulation is the behavior
> of the actual program.
>
> In fact, when you describe the "simulation" your program does, it
> doesn't actually simulate a "Call H instruction", but instead used
> INVALID and UNSOUND logic to try to "guess" what that behavior will be.
>
> Thus, your claim of different behavior of simulation is just a LIE.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> These same people also know that computable functions only
>>>> operate on their inputs.
>>>
>>> Again, why do you FALSELY assume the function is computable?
>>>
>>
>> Requiring a computation to report on the behavior its its caller
>> is computationally incorrect. COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!!!
>
> But it isn't asked to report on the behavior of its caller, it is asked
> to report on the behavior of the program given described by its input.
> If that just happens to its caller, there is nothing wrong with giving
> the answer about what it will do, and in fact, that is what it MUST do.
>
> Yes, you can not phrase the question as the behavior of its caller, but
> if you make the input describe the caller, than that is what it must
> answer about, as that is what its input is.
>
> You just keep on trying to lie by changing the words, a typical
> technique of LIARS.
>
> All you are doing is proving that you don't understand what computations
> are, how computers work, or even how logic works.
>
>>
>>> Or why that desciption isn't the description of the program that
>>> calls H?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So they are simply contradicting their own views by not paying
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>> Nope, YOU are the one with the contradiction.
>>>
>>> You claim H meets the requirements, which means that it should be
>>> able to decide about any program described by its input, and that you
>>> can describe and program, but then say that this program can't be
>>> given to your decider.
>>>
>>> That is just admitting that you have been lying.
>>>
>>> It seems, that again, you just don't understand the meaning of the
>>> terms you are using, and just falsely accuse anything that doesn't
>>> make sense to you as incorrect.
>>>
>>> That just proves that you are utter ignorant about what you are
>>> talking about and have made yourself into a pathological liar.
>>
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0df0m$26ja1$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103905 |
On 4/24/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/24/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But that
>>>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to construe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine
>>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with
>>>>>>>>>>> some input,
>>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then
>>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program
>>>>>> described by it input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable
>>>>>> Function" and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting
>>>>>> Function computable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided
>>>>>> on, so that IS the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
>>>>> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you describe that program?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The x86 code is the only description finite string input that H is
>>> allowed to have.
>>
>> And either that can describe the full program D(D), or you are just
>> admitting that H fails to be a Halt Decider by its own limitations.
>>
>> Remember, the REQUIREMENTS prevail, if you somehow restrict H so you
>> can not describe some programs to it, then H BY DEFINITION fails to be
>> the needed decider.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't
>>>> handle ALL possible inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND YOU KNOW THAT!
>>
>> Why not? The x86 code given to H it the code for it, at least if you
>> include ALL the x86 code of the full program D.
>>
>> If YOU decided to not give it enough of the description, then you are
>> just admitting to LYING about what you are doing.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These same people already know that the program that invokes
>>>>> the decider is definitely not its input.
>>>>
>>>> But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
>>
>> Nope. If H is the required computation, then D is also a computation,
>> and all copies of it behave the same.
>
>
> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
How? The DEFINITION of the question asked by H(D,D) is what is the
behavior of the computation D(D).
Remember, the question is: "Does the program represented by the input halt?"
The program represented by the input D,D is the direct execution of D(D).
>
> The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
> The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
> The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
>
> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
> simulation.
Hpw?
What instruction CORRECTLY simulated in the whole program D differs from
the actual behavior,
Note, that means the Call H instruction must end up doing exactly the
same thing in the simulation as in the actual execution, something your
H doesn't do.
Your H's simulation is NOT "correct" as it doesn't actually simulate the
call to H, but tries to "deduce" the behavior, and that deduction is
incorrect.
Part of your problem is you are not looking at the PROGRAM D as given,
which includes the H it is calling, but the template used to build
program D, with a funny link to whatever H is trying to decide on it,
which ISN'T even a valid program, as a real computation doesn't know the
context it is being used in.
You just fail to understand the whole concept of Computation Theory.
> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
> simulation.
> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
> simulation.
>
> H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
> H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
> H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
No, it must report on the behavior of the program described by its
input, which is D(D)
Your problem is you don't understnad the meaning of Truth or Requirements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 22:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0cka9$2q2p1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103904 |
On 4/24/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that.
>>>>>>>>>>> But that
>>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem
>>>>>>>>>>>> to construe
>>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would
>>>>>>>>>>>> totally understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine
>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with
>>>>>>>>>> some input,
>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then
>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>>>>
>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program
>>>>> described by it input.
>>>>>
>>>>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>>>> else.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function"
>>>>> and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided
>>>>> on, so that IS the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
>>>> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Why can't you describe that program?
>>>
>>
>> The x86 code is the only description finite string input that H is
>> allowed to have.
>
> And either that can describe the full program D(D), or you are just
> admitting that H fails to be a Halt Decider by its own limitations.
>
> Remember, the REQUIREMENTS prevail, if you somehow restrict H so you can
> not describe some programs to it, then H BY DEFINITION fails to be the
> needed decider.
>
>
>>
>>> If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't
>>> handle ALL possible inputs.
>>>
>>
>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND YOU KNOW THAT!
>
> Why not? The x86 code given to H it the code for it, at least if you
> include ALL the x86 code of the full program D.
>
> If YOU decided to not give it enough of the description, then you are
> just admitting to LYING about what you are doing.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> These same people already know that the program that invokes
>>>> the decider is definitely not its input.
>>>
>>> But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>>>
>>
>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
>
> Nope. If H is the required computation, then D is also a computation,
> and all copies of it behave the same.
>
> I guess you are just admitting that you your logic system determinism
> doesn't exist, and thus a given statement might be both True or False at
> the same or diffferent times. In other words, you are describe a system
> without a real definiton of Truth,
>
> That seems right for what you have described.
>
>
>>
>> the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
>> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
>> simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
>
> Then the simulation is INCORRECT, PERIOD, BY DEFINITION.
>
> THis is because the DEFINITION of a correct simulation is the behavior
> of the actual program.
>
> In fact, when you describe the "simulation" your program does, it
> doesn't actually simulate a "Call H instruction", but instead used
> INVALID and UNSOUND logic to try to "guess" what that behavior will be.
>
> Thus, your claim of different behavior of simulation is just a LIE.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> These same people also know that computable functions only
>>>> operate on their inputs.
>>>
>>> Again, why do you FALSELY assume the function is computable?
>>>
>>
>> Requiring a computation to report on the behavior its its caller
>> is computationally incorrect. COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!!!
>
> But it isn't asked to report on the behavior of its caller,
You have been saying that it must report on the behavior of the D(D)
that calls H(D,D)
You have been saying that it must report on the behavior of the D(D)
that calls H(D,D)
You have been saying that it must report on the behavior of the D(D)
that calls H(D,D)
H(D,D) IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS !!! AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
H(D,D) IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS !!! AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
H(D,D) IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS !!! AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
> it is asked
> to report on the behavior of the program given described by its input.
> If that just happens to its caller, there is nothing wrong with giving
> the answer about what it will do, and in fact, that is what it MUST do.
>
> Yes, you can not phrase the question as the behavior of its caller, but
> if you make the input describe the caller, than that is what it must
> answer about, as that is what its input is.
>
> You just keep on trying to lie by changing the words, a typical
> technique of LIARS.
>
> All you are doing is proving that you don't understand what computations
> are, how computers work, or even how logic works.
>
>>
>>> Or why that desciption isn't the description of the program that
>>> calls H?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So they are simply contradicting their own views by not paying
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>> Nope, YOU are the one with the contradiction.
>>>
>>> You claim H meets the requirements, which means that it should be
>>> able to decide about any program described by its input, and that you
>>> can describe and program, but then say that this program can't be
>>> given to your decider.
>>>
>>> That is just admitting that you have been lying.
>>>
>>> It seems, that again, you just don't understand the meaning of the
>>> terms you are using, and just falsely accuse anything that doesn't
>>> make sense to you as incorrect.
>>>
>>> That just proves that you are utter ignorant about what you are
>>> talking about and have made yourself into a pathological liar.
>>
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0df0o$26ja1$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103906 |
On 4/24/24 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/24/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But that
>>>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to construe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine
>>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with
>>>>>>>>>>> some input,
>>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then
>>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program
>>>>>> described by it input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable
>>>>>> Function" and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting
>>>>>> Function computable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided
>>>>>> on, so that IS the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
>>>>> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you describe that program?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The x86 code is the only description finite string input that H is
>>> allowed to have.
>>
>> And either that can describe the full program D(D), or you are just
>> admitting that H fails to be a Halt Decider by its own limitations.
>>
>> Remember, the REQUIREMENTS prevail, if you somehow restrict H so you
>> can not describe some programs to it, then H BY DEFINITION fails to be
>> the needed decider.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't
>>>> handle ALL possible inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND YOU KNOW THAT!
>>
>> Why not? The x86 code given to H it the code for it, at least if you
>> include ALL the x86 code of the full program D.
>>
>> If YOU decided to not give it enough of the description, then you are
>> just admitting to LYING about what you are doing.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These same people already know that the program that invokes
>>>>> the decider is definitely not its input.
>>>>
>>>> But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
>>
>> Nope. If H is the required computation, then D is also a computation,
>> and all copies of it behave the same.
>>
>> I guess you are just admitting that you your logic system determinism
>> doesn't exist, and thus a given statement might be both True or False
>> at the same or diffferent times. In other words, you are describe a
>> system without a real definiton of Truth,
>>
>> That seems right for what you have described.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
>>> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
>>> simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
>>
>> Then the simulation is INCORRECT, PERIOD, BY DEFINITION.
>>
>> THis is because the DEFINITION of a correct simulation is the behavior
>> of the actual program.
>>
>> In fact, when you describe the "simulation" your program does, it
>> doesn't actually simulate a "Call H instruction", but instead used
>> INVALID and UNSOUND logic to try to "guess" what that behavior will be.
>>
>> Thus, your claim of different behavior of simulation is just a LIE.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These same people also know that computable functions only
>>>>> operate on their inputs.
>>>>
>>>> Again, why do you FALSELY assume the function is computable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Requiring a computation to report on the behavior its its caller
>>> is computationally incorrect. COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!!!
>>
>> But it isn't asked to report on the behavior of its caller,
>
> You have been saying that it must report on the behavior of the D(D)
> that calls H(D,D)
No, it must report on the program D(D), which just happens to call H.
ALL copies of D(D) will call some copy of H(D,D), it doesn't have to
look at the particular one that is calling this copy, as they all do the
same thing.
>
> You have been saying that it must report on the behavior of the D(D)
> that calls H(D,D)
>
> You have been saying that it must report on the behavior of the D(D)
> that calls H(D,D)
>
>
> H(D,D) IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS !!! AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
> H(D,D) IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS !!! AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
> H(D,D) IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS !!! AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
Then you are just admitting that H fails to be a Halt Decider.
To be a Halt Decider, H must answer about ANY program it is given.
Yes, we can't ask the question about "The Program that is calling you",
but we CAN ask about D(D), which happens to call a copy of you.
Since all copies of programs behave the same, it doesn't matter which.
The fact your say a "Correct Simulation" of this input acts diffferently
then the Direct Exectution of said program, just shows that you are
nothing but a LIAR, as the DEFINITION of a CORRECT SIMULATION, in this
context, is that it exactly matches that direct exectution.
This is something you SHOULD know, but the fact that you don't just
shows how totally ignorant you are of the field, and how willing you are
to LIE about things to make your point, showing that you are nothing but
an ignorant pathological liar.
It seems your personal view of reality is just based on lying to yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-24 21:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <i92dnTBl7rpDSLT7nZ2dnZfqn_UAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #103904 |
On 04/24/2024 08:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that.
>>>>>>>>>>> But that
>>>>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem
>>>>>>>>>>>> to construe
>>>>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would
>>>>>>>>>>>> totally understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine
>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with
>>>>>>>>>> some input,
>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then
>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>>>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>>>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>>>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*.
>>>>>
>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program
>>>>> described by it input.
>>>>>
>>>>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>>>> else.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function"
>>>>> and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided
>>>>> on, so that IS the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description
>>>> to include the program that invokes the halt decider.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Why can't you describe that program?
>>>
>>
>> The x86 code is the only description finite string input that H is
>> allowed to have.
>
> And either that can describe the full program D(D), or you are just
> admitting that H fails to be a Halt Decider by its own limitations.
>
> Remember, the REQUIREMENTS prevail, if you somehow restrict H so you can
> not describe some programs to it, then H BY DEFINITION fails to be the
> needed decider.
>
>
>>
>>> If you can't, then you have just admitted that you decider can't
>>> handle ALL possible inputs.
>>>
>>
>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND YOU KNOW THAT!
>
> Why not? The x86 code given to H it the code for it, at least if you
> include ALL the x86 code of the full program D.
>
> If YOU decided to not give it enough of the description, then you are
> just admitting to LYING about what you are doing.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> These same people already know that the program that invokes
>>>> the decider is definitely not its input.
>>>
>>> But it IS, as that is PRECISELY the program described by the input.
>>>
>>
>> The D(D) that invokes H(D,D) IS NOT ITS INPUT AND HAS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR
>
> Nope. If H is the required computation, then D is also a computation,
> and all copies of it behave the same.
>
> I guess you are just admitting that you your logic system determinism
> doesn't exist, and thus a given statement might be both True or False at
> the same or diffferent times. In other words, you are describe a system
> without a real definiton of Truth,
>
> That seems right for what you have described.
>
>
>>
>> the behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
>> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted its
>> simulation. H(D,D) must report on the behavior that it actually sees.
>
> Then the simulation is INCORRECT, PERIOD, BY DEFINITION.
>
> THis is because the DEFINITION of a correct simulation is the behavior
> of the actual program.
>
> In fact, when you describe the "simulation" your program does, it
> doesn't actually simulate a "Call H instruction", but instead used
> INVALID and UNSOUND logic to try to "guess" what that behavior will be.
>
> Thus, your claim of different behavior of simulation is just a LIE.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> These same people also know that computable functions only
>>>> operate on their inputs.
>>>
>>> Again, why do you FALSELY assume the function is computable?
>>>
>>
>> Requiring a computation to report on the behavior its its caller
>> is computationally incorrect. COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!!!
>
> But it isn't asked to report on the behavior of its caller, it is asked
> to report on the behavior of the program given described by its input.
> If that just happens to its caller, there is nothing wrong with giving
> the answer about what it will do, and in fact, that is what it MUST do.
>
> Yes, you can not phrase the question as the behavior of its caller, but
> if you make the input describe the caller, than that is what it must
> answer about, as that is what its input is.
>
> You just keep on trying to lie by changing the words, a typical
> technique of LIARS.
>
> All you are doing is proving that you don't understand what computations
> are, how computers work, or even how logic works.
>
>>
>>> Or why that desciption isn't the description of the program that
>>> calls H?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So they are simply contradicting their own views by not paying
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>> Nope, YOU are the one with the contradiction.
>>>
>>> You claim H meets the requirements, which means that it should be
>>> able to decide about any program described by its input, and that you
>>> can describe and program, but then say that this program can't be
>>> given to your decider.
>>>
>>> That is just admitting that you have been lying.
>>>
>>> It seems, that again, you just don't understand the meaning of the
>>> terms you are using, and just falsely accuse anything that doesn't
>>> make sense to you as incorrect.
>>>
>>> That just proves that you are utter ignorant about what you are
>>> talking about and have made yourself into a pathological liar.
>>
>
It's so that for an abitrarily large input you might
need at least an arbitrarily larger decider.
There is one, though. For finite inputs, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-25 09:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0doho$31mkn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103899 |
On 4/25/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-25 00:17:57 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you
>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems separately
>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>>>> construe
>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand "invalid
>>>>>>> input"
>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some
>>>>>> input,
>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically
>>>>>> do the
>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that handles
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>
>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>
>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>> else.
>>
>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> When the definition of a halt decider contradicts the definition of
>> a computable function they can't both be right.
>
> When the definitions of a term contradicts the definition of another term
> then both of them are wrong. A correct definition does not contradict
> anything other than a different definition of the same term.
>
*Wrong*
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of
contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of
contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be
true in the same sense at the same time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
*That one is correct*
01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 D(D);
12 }
That H(D,D) must report on the behavior of its caller is the
one that is incorrect.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-25 21:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- |
| Message-ID | <v0f18a$28f0r$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #103913 |
On 4/25/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-04-25 00:17:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or
>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is
>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you
>>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much
>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. But
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems
>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>> in the two areas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to
>>>>>>>>> construe
>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally
>>>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand
>>>>>>>> "invalid input"
>>>>>>>> as "impossible input".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine whether
>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some
>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically
>>>>>>> do the
>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that
>>>>>>> handles this
>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does correctly
>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply
>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails
>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then
>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly
>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that
>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D).
>>>>
>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be
>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that
>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program
>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT.
>>>
>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>> else.
>>>
>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>> When the definition of a halt decider contradicts the definition of
>>> a computable function they can't both be right.
>>
>> When the definitions of a term contradicts the definition of another term
>> then both of them are wrong. A correct definition does not contradict
>> anything other than a different definition of the same term.
>>
>
> *Wrong*
> In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of
> contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of
> contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be
> true in the same sense at the same time
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>
> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> *That one is correct*
But the question is *IF* the Halting Function is computable, you can't
just assume it is.
We have a "Function", we can call HALTING, which maps input to the
output answer, and for this problem HALTING(M,d) maps to True if M(d)
will halt, and to False if M(d) will never halt.
For H to be a "Halt Decider, and show that HALTING is a computable
funciton, then H must be able to take in the representation of ANY
possible input the HALTING, and give the correct answer that the HALTING
mapping generates.
>
> 01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11 D(D);
> 12 }
>
> That H(D,D) must report on the behavior of its caller is the
> one that is incorrect.
>
So, given that we have some actual program H defined, then D will be an
actual program and D can also be the description of an actual program so
HALTING(D,D) will map to the behavior of D(D).
For H to be an actual Halt Decider, it MUST be able to take that exact
same input, and give the right answer.
THere is *NO* ground for H to somehow say that the input isn't "valid",
as if H is program, then so is D, so it *IS* in the domain of the
mapping it is trying to compute.
The fact that for ANY H you might be able to create, the answer returned
by H(D,D) for the D built on it is wrong, shows that no H can exist that
works on EVERY input, and thus HALTING is a non-computable mapping.
Note, H is NOT being asked to answer about "the program that is calling
it", but about "the program described by its input", which IS a valid
question.
Your confusing those two questions, even though in THIS case reference
the exact same program, but the question themselves are different.
The fact that it is invalid to ask the question about deciding on "The
Program that is calling H" does not make asking about D(D) invalid, as
that is a perfectly valid input to give it, it only makes asking that
EXACT question invalid.
This shows your lack of ability to understand logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web