XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/2025 11:41 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   The input to HHH(DD) does not behave the   
   same as DD called from main:   
   HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
      
   The input to HHH1(DD) behaves the same   
   as DD called from main:   
   HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that   
   returns to DD that returns to HHH1.   
      
   The halting problem requires HHH to report   
   on behavior other than the behavior encoded   
   in HHH/DD.   
      
   >   
   > --   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)