home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 57,999 of 59,235   
   olcott to Kaz Kylheku   
   Re: Conventional notion of the HP diagon   
   04 Oct 25 11:35:20   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/4/2025 10:36 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-04, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 10/4/2025 10:01 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >>> On 04/10/2025 13:56, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/4/2025 12:02 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-10-03, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>>>>> For the set of H/P pairs of   
   >>>>>> decider H and input P:   
   >>>>>> If H says halts then P loops   
   >>>>>> If H says loops then P halts   
   >>>>>> making H(P) always incorrect.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope, it's like (from my Lisp session):   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> How is it that you can disagree with verified facts?   
   >>>   
   >>> The incomputability of the Halting Problem is a verified fact,   
   >>   
   >> Within the premise that H must report on the behavior of D.   
   >> yet not when H reports on the behavior specified by its input D.   
   >   
   > So, there you go that is the answer to "how is it that you can disagree   
   > with verified facts"; you spew nonsensical, cranky garbage in which it   
   > supposed to be understood that "the behavior specified by its input D"   
   > and "the behavior of D" are magically two different entities.   
   >   
   > Magical thinking.   
   >   
   >> The behavior of D and the behavior of the input D are not   
   >> the same when an input calls its own simulating termination   
   >> analyzer.   
   >   
   > Then that termination analyzer is obviously incorrect.   
   >   
      
   That you still don't understand that embedded_H is   
   correct when it reports on the recursive simulation   
   behavior of its correct partial simulation of its   
   input is not my mistake.   
      
   There are no number recursive simulations where ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   correctly simulated by embedded_H would ever   
   (a) Stop running without being aborted   
   (b) Reach its own simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩   
      
   Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept   
   state   
   Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state   
   (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca