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 58,613 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Tristan Wibberley    |
|    Re: Proof of halting problem category er    |
|    13 Dec 25 10:02:37    |
      XPost: comp.theory       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/13/2025 7:58 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:       > On 13/12/2025 05:08, polcott wrote:       >       >> Intuitively, a decider should be a Turing machine that given an input,       >> halts and either accepts or rejects, relaying its answer in one of many       >> equivalent ways, such as halting at an ACCEPT or REJECT state, or       >> leaving its answer on the output tape.       >> https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/84433/what-is-decider       >       > That's wrong. Intuitively, a decider makes some commitment relative to a       > process; which could be just what to begin trying out, or even just what       > to "believe" for the moment for a personal decider in their personal       > continuum. Absent the process and the role that the decision shall play,       > a (discrete) decision has to be absolute (there can be no meaning), so       > the terminology must be interpreted as a mere classification.       >       > Is "decider" a conventional terminology for something that analyses for       > the specific purpose of a process that involves ostensible acceptance or       > ostensible rejection continuations specifically?       >       >              Decider is a term-of-the-art of the theory of       computation. It simply decides whether or not       a finite string is a member of a set.              The screwy thing about the term-of-the-art is       that if it gets even one wrong answer it is       not any decider at all.              As a term-of-the-art a decider must be all knowing.       This is easy for syntactic properties. Much more       difficult for semantic properties.              All Turing machines only compute the mapping       from an input finite string to some value.                     --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca