XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk   
      
   On 18/11/2025 03:45, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-18, 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   
   >   
   > But polocott means something else. He keeps insisting (without any   
   > rational justification) that the conventional halting problem,   
   > when "H" is presented with the diagonal "D" case, is asking   
   > "H" to decide something which is not the finite string input.   
      
   Some things to consider in evaluating Olcott's inability to analyse his   
   doubts:   
      
   (1) The halting problem *as described to him*   
   (2)   
     (i) If H(P) is the recursion, then the nonobviousness of the   
   constructibility of a copy of the original program text P from a   
   contractum of the program text   
     (ii) The nonobviousness or impermissibility (presumed or otherwise) of   
   the equality H(P') = H(P) where P' is some contractum of P.   
      
      
   --   
   Tristan Wibberley   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)