XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com
On 18/11/2025 03:10, 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
What does that mean though?
It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ machine
description D, must compute
"whether or not D's halting is computable". [And saying no such single TM
exists?]
The problem is in the phrase within quotes. Surely that phrase means "whether
or not there exists a
TM that computes whether the given D halts or not"? If not, what does it mean?
Mike.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
