XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl
Op 21.jul.2025 om 15:36 schreef olcott:
> On 7/21/2025 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:16 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/20/2025 2:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 19.jul.2025 om 16:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/19/2025 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 18.jul.2025 om 18:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/18/2025 6:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 17.jul.2025 om 16:44 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 5:16 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 2:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You lie. You don't have a proof. Many people in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group have pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out lots of errors in various versions of your purported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof, which you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just ignore. The section in Professor Linz's book you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to be so fond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would take the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have addressed ....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meaningless pompous word.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... all of those details that you make sure to ignore so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly claim that I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I vaguely remember rolling my eyes at your hopeless lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. It was like watching a 7 year old trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do calculus.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The basic understanding was simply not there. Years later,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's still
>>>>>>>>>>>> not there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, you are wrong. The proofs of the halting theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>> which involve
>>>>>>>>>>>> constructing programs which purported halting deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot decide
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you cannot point to even one mistake because there are none.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what I'm saying. Those proofs of the halting theorem
>>>>>>>>>> are free
>>>>>>>>>> from mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More to the point, it is YOU who cannot point to any mistakes
>>>>>>>>>> in them.
>>>>>>>>>> They are valid proofs. Your work, if it contradicts those
>>>>>>>>>> proofs (which
>>>>>>>>>> isn't at all clear) can thus be dismissed without further
>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There cannot possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever its decider decides. All of the examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this have never been *ACTUAL INPUTS*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's so sloppily worded, it could mean almost anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has been constructed, and is valid. But one would normally
>>>>>>>>>> talk about
>>>>>>>>>> formulating a proof, rather than constructing one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Turing machine can possibly take another directly executing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine as in input, thus removing these from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of every halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Thus the requirement that HHH report on the behavior*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *of the directly executed DD has always been bogus*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that makes your hat trick.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine partial halt deciders compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from their actual inputs to the actual behavior that these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And a fourth. There's some semblance of truth in there, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's very
>>>>>>>>>>>> confused.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not at all confused. I know exactly what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's very confused to everybody but you, then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloppy wording is your technique to get people to go down to
>>>>>>>>>>>> your level
>>>>>>>>>>>> of discussion. That involves many posts trying just to tie
>>>>>>>>>>>> you down to
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific word meanings, and is very tiresome and
>>>>>>>>>>>> unrewarding. I decline
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get involved any further.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Yet as I claimed you found no actual mistake*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've found plenty of actual mistakes. I was a software
>>>>>>>>>> developer by
>>>>>>>>>> profession.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let me tell you the punchline so that you can
>>>>>>>>>>> see why I said those things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Despite what I said last post, I will actually go to the
>>>>>>>>>> trouble of
>>>>>>>>>> analysing your sloppy expression.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because directly executed Turing machines cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be inputs to Turing machine deciders this
>>>>>>>>>>> makes them outside of the domain of these deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's entirely unclear what a "directly executed Turing
>>>>>>>>>> machine" is. Most
>>>>>>>>>> of the time turing machines are theoretical constructs used
>>>>>>>>>> for proving
>>>>>>>>>> theorems. They can be executed, but rarely are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's unclear what you mean by a turing machine being an input
>>>>>>>>>> to a turing
>>>>>>>>>> machine. Read up about universal turing machines to get a bit of
>>>>>>>>>> background.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a partial halt decider is required to report
>>>>>>>>>>> on the direct execution of a machine this requirement
>>>>>>>>>>> is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See above. That paragraph is meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This means that the behavior of DD() is none of the damn
>>>>>>>>>>> business of HHH, thus does not contradict HHH(DD)==0.
>>>>>>>>>>> *If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's fully obscure what DD() and HHH mean, and thus impossible to
>>>>>>>>>> affirm or contradict the meaningless "HHH(DD)==0".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) does correctly detect that DD simulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics pf the C programming language
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return"statement final
>>>>>>>>>>> halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See above. By the way, people concerned with computation
>>>>>>>>>> theory use
>>>>>>>>>> turing machines, which are well-defined, simple, and powerful.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
