Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/3/24 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:Then explain exactly how this is not deception:On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But the answer the decider gives isn't random, because algorithms are not random.On 6/3/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/3/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/3/24 4:53 PM, olcott wrote:>For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a>
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
The way that the halting problem is conventionally understood is that H
must correctly answer yes or no to an input that contradicts both
answers, thus H is being asked a question isomorphic to the Liar
Paradox: Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
But it doesn't reduce to that, as the decider was fixed in code first, and then, by using that code, a question is constructed WITH A RIGHT ANSWER, that just isn't the answer that this decider happens to give.
>
You just don't seem to understand logic well enough to understand that not that subtitle difference.
>
In other words you are trying to get away with saying
that it is only random chance that H gets the wrong
answer not that the game is rigged against H.
>
>
There is nothing "random" about it, if there was there would be a chance it could get it right.
>
Then why did you say it was random?
"just isn't the answer that this decider happens to give."
You can't get away with that head game by pretending>But both answers aren't wrong. Remember, the question is built to make a SPECIFIC decider wrong, and by its algorithm, it will give a SPECIFIC answer to each SPECIFIC question.
When H is asked a yes/no question where both answers are
contradicted by its input *IT IS A FREAKING RIGGED GAME*
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.