Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,492 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Mikko    |
|    Re: The Halting Problem asks for too muc    |
|    13 Jan 26 08:31:33    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/13/2026 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:       > On 12/01/2026 16:32, olcott wrote:       >> On 1/12/2026 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>> On 11/01/2026 16:24, Tristan Wibberley wrote:       >>>> On 11/01/2026 10:13, Mikko wrote:       >>>>> On 10/01/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:       >>>>>> On 1/10/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>>       >>>>>>> No, that does not follow. If a required result cannot be derived by       >>>>>>> appying a finite string transformation then the it it is       >>>>>>> uncomputable.       >>>>>>       >>>>>> Right. Outside the scope of computation. Requiring anything       >>>>>> outside the scope of computation is an incorrect requirement.       >>>>>       >>>>> You can't determine whether the required result is computable before       >>>>> you have the requirement.       >>>>       >>>>       >>>> Right, it is /in/ scope for computer science... for the /ology/. Olcott       >>>> here uses "computation" to refer to the practice. You give the       >>>> requirement to the /ologist/ who correctly decides that it is not for       >>>> computation because it is not computable.       >>>>       >>>> You two so often violently agree; I find it warming to the heart.       >>>       >>> For pracitcal programming it is useful to know what is known to be       >>> uncomputable in order to avoid wasting time in attemlpts to do the       >>> impossible.       >>       >> It f-cking nuts that after more than 2000 years       >> people still don't understand that self-contradictory       >> expressions: "This sentence is not true" have no       >> truth value. A smart high school student should have       >> figured this out 2000 years ago.       >       > Irrelevant. For practical programming that question needn't be answered.       >              The halting problem counter-example input is anchored       in the Liar Paradox. Proof Theoretic Semantics rejects       those two and Gödel's incompleteness and a bunch more       as merely non-well-founded inputs.              --       Copyright 2026 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca