XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid
On 11/17/25 7:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/17/2025 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to
>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in
>>>>>>> their input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string
>>>>>> describing the machine
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation
>>>>> is like this very extreme example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States
>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2).
>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input.
>>>>
>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem:
>>>>
>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to
>>>> compute
>>>> whether the machine described halts
>>>
>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one
>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings.
>>>
>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than
>>> the string.
>>
>> yes i meant generally
>>
>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute
>> whether a an machine description halts or not
>>
>
> Didn't you suggest you have a solution to the halting problem using
> reflection?
yes, i was speaking to the consensus understanding in what you've quoted
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
