Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #166730
| From | Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem |
| Date | 2022-07-14 23:46 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <taq2ro$125n$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <1tmdnWTZkrczuVP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t3qzK.380747$vAW9.26309@fx10.iad> <-bWdnc2EzYm6s1P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <jj8qhvF45m0U1@mid.individual.net> <TZadnQkXeJXt-VL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
On 14.07.22 02:33, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2022 4:08 PM, Jens Schweikhardt wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> # H(P,P) correctly predicts that its input cannot possibly terminate
>> # normally. (I have better words now).
>>
>> Please excuse my ignorance, I'm very late to the discussion, if the
>> following has already been brought forward.
>>
>> It is my understanding that a "working" halt decider can be used to
>> prove or disprove any math theorem that can be expressed as a program
>> that halts or doesn't halt, depending on whether the proposition is true
>> or false. Simple example: the Riemann Hypothesis that the non-trivial
>> zeros of the zeta function have real part 0.5.
>>
>> A C program could halt if it finds a zero with real part not equal 0.5;
>> if it can't it will run forever (assuming arbitrary large memory for the
>> bignums).
>>
>> int main (void) {
>> /* mycomplex: An arbitrary precision complex type. */
>> mycomplex zero = 0.0;
>> for (;;) {
>> zero = compute_next_zero(zero); /* elided for brevity */
>> if (realpart(zero) != 0.5)
>> break;
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> So if your claim holds true, feed the program to your machine, if it
>> says "never halts" the RH is proven true, otherwise false. Too easy. But
>> how does the knowledge about all zeros come into your halt decider? And
>> abount all the trillions of other programs to prove or disprove a
>> theorem? What about some of the other non-tractable problems, such as
>> P=NP? Can we conceive a C program for this question?
>>
>> I don't think any finite program could be such a general theorem prover
>> and therefore I am convinced you are chasing a ghost and there's
>> something you overlooked. I can't say what exactly, but I don't have to,
>> because the above to me is an reductio ad absurdum. Given the halting
>> problem could be solved, theorem proving becomes trivial immediately.
>>possible to
>> I am aware it's not a strict proof in the mathematical sense, but good
>> enough for me. It's like you are coming to a physicist with a new
>> perpetual motion machine. They will not spend time finding the exact
>> weak point in your contraption. They will simply reject it, like any
>> patent office worth their salt.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jens
>
> There is a huge difference between solving the halting problem and
> refuting the conventional proofs that solving the halting problem is
> impossible. I am only doing the latter.
>
> It may not even be the case that solving the halting problem could
> answer currently unknown problems of mathematics. This would require
> infallible mathematical reasoning about all of mathematics such that it
> could deduce every mathematical unknown. This is a very much broader
> scope than simply correctly determining whether or not a computer
> program will stop running.
>
Oh my God! This is the point where you show (as "IT IS A PROVEN AND
VERIFIED FACT") that you don't understand anything about anything at all.
It would even be impossible to start teaching you anything whatsoever.
Your mind just doesn't work the way it should for it to grasp what it's
being taught.
If I had a pupil like you in school I would call his parents and
recommend them to change school. In your case I recommend to change the
subject: maths and computer science just aren't for you. You would
however make a great artist.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 00:44 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 09:33 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 00:58 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 15:39 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2022-07-11 14:17 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-07-11 14:38 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 10:48 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-07-11 20:59 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 03:28 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 14:24 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-11 12:40 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 19:34 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-12 12:33 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Albert Arkwright <Albert.Arkwright@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 22:13 +0100
H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-11 18:14 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:14 +0200
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 20:49 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 22:26 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 21:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 22:39 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 21:52 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 07:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 07:19 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-13 18:27 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 19:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 19:06 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 21:20 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 20:34 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 21:55 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 21:08 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 22:21 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 21:55 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 05:18 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 23:27 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 07:53 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 05:43 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 07:08 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-14 16:06 +0000
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 23:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 07:52 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 05:49 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 07:12 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 17:48 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 07:07 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2022-07-18 17:51 +0300
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 22:29 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 19:41 -0700
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2022-07-13 21:08 +0000
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 19:33 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> - 2022-07-14 23:46 +0200
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:04 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-12 09:52 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-12 11:27 +0100
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 13:01 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-12 22:19 +0100
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" [Olcott] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 21:04 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-13 10:02 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-13 15:24 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-13 19:00 +0100
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 15:31 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 14:29 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 14:46 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 07:48 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 21:45 -0400
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 08:18 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 07:45 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 21:39 -0400
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 07:45 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 02:56 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 11:01 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 13:54 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 01:13 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 10:23 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" pure SE - Olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 11:25 -0700
csiph-web