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 58,813 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Proof that the halting problem is in    |
|    25 Dec 25 20:20:28    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/25/2025 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       > On 12/25/25 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:       >> On 12/25/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:       >>>       >>> https://chatgpt.com/share/694dcae3-a210-8011-b12f-a74007045a4a       >>>       >>       >> "Any result that cannot be derived as a pure function       >> of finite strings is uncomputable."       >>       >> Deciders are not accountable for anything that       >> is not a pure function of their actual inputs.       >       > And the "Halting Function" *IS* a "Pure Function" of its input, so you       > are agreeing that your decider are accountable to being asked about the       > Halting of theinput.       >       >>       >> It is categorically impossible for there to       >> be a better measure of the actual behavior       >> that the actual input actually specifies       >> to H(P) that H computes as a pure function       >> of its actual input than P simulated by H.       >>       >       > WRONG, and that just shows how stupid you are.       >              What is your actual reasoning to show that I am incorrect?       Calling be stupid seems to indicate that you are baffled.       It certainly does not indicate that I am incorrect.              > That CAN'T be the measure for a Halt Decider.       >       >       > What is you logic to make this claim?       >              Already fully provided and you ignored it or       it was over-your-head. I don't think it was       over-your-head. You do seem to have all the       basic ideas correctly.              > It seems to just come out of your ignorance.       >       > Sorry, but you have PROVES that you presumptions are just bad, and that       > you are just a pathological liar.                     --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca