Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" |
| Date | 2022-05-01 12:43 -0600 |
| Organization | Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism |
| Message-ID | <t4mkci$cj2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <20220501133707.00002134@reddwarf.jmc> <n8zbK.4460$81g4.3413@fx37.iad> <t4mg34$3n9$1@dont-email.me> <d9KdnQZt_bn_T_P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
On 2022-05-01 12:33, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 12:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 11:08, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/22 8:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Recursive definitions are fine, infinitely recursive definitions (such
>>>> as The Halting Problem) are INVALID.
>>>>
>>>> RECURSIVE and INFINITELY RECURSIVE are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the Halting Problem isn't recursive at all, so it can't be
>>> infinity recursive. NOTHING in the definition refers to itself.
>>>
>>> The counter example is, in a way, "recursive", but that recursion can
>>> only become infinite if the proposed Halt Decider turns out to fail
>>> to be a Halt Decider.
>>
>> Actually, even the counterexample is not recursive. It only becomes
>> recursive (or recursive-like) if one assumes that H bases its answer
>> on the simulation of its input. And the proof certainly does not
>> require that to be the case.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Since the definition of H is wide open and can be anything at all that
> meets the spec, if any of these definitions make the "impossible" input
> decidable then this refutes the proofs.
But the spec is as follows:
Hq0 <M> w ⊢* Hqy iff M applied to w halts
⊢* Hqn otherwise
Yours fails to meet this spec.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-01 13:37 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-01 15:39 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" polcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 11:05 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:14 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-02 00:50 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-01 17:17 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-02 00:44 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 01:26 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 18:29 -0600
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 01:31 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-02 01:49 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:08 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 12:23 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 14:04 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 11:30 -0600
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 14:10 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 13:33 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 12:43 -0600
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:05 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:19 -0600
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:24 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:35 -0600
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:43 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:45 -0600
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:56 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:49 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:43 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 12:21 -0700
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:27 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:52 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 14:10 -0700
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 02:53 -0700
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:31 -0500
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-02 15:46 +0100
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:43 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:27 -0400
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:13 -0400
csiph-web