XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/18/2025 7:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 11/18/25 3:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 9:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Okay. Well, 100% per-path coverage is one way we can say that DD halts
>> _and_ does not halt. I made the fuzzer for Olcotts DD for fun. Its NOT
>> a solution to the halting problem. Actually, he raised some red flags
>> in my mind when he tried to tell me that BASIC cannot handle recursion...
>
> depends on which BASIC tho, eh?
>
>> Programming BASIC brings back memories of when I was a little kid.
>>
>> Actually, you should be able to mock up your reflection system. Have
>> you made any headway?
>
> not at all
>
> i'm working on the logical consistency of the theory, which is going to
> be far simpler than actual implementation
>
> i'm currently a bit stumped on dealing with a possible a halting paradox
> constructed within RTMs, using an RTM simulating a TM simulating an RTM.
> this chain similarly mechanically cuts off the required information to
> avoid a paradox, kinda like a TM alone. not fully confident it's a
> problem or not
>
> i may write a post on it
>
When input DD does the opposite of whatever value
HHH determines then the HHH/DD combination is
merely the Liar Paradox in disguise. In this
case the correct response to to reject this input
as semantically ill-formed.
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
