Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/16/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:For every computation "yes" is the correct answer if and only if one canOn 2024-05-15 15:06:26 +0000, olcott said:Yet it <is> an incremental improvement over both YES and NO are
On 5/15/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:That does not satisfy the usual definition of "halt decider".On 2024-05-14 14:32:26 +0000, olcott said:I refer to transitioning through a specific state to indicate
On 5/14/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:That notation is not any better for the purpose.On 2024-05-12 15:58:02 +0000, olcott said:00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
On 5/12/2024 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:This notation does not work with machines that can, or have partsOn 2024-05-12 11:34:17 +0000, Richard Damon said:When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
On 5/12/24 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:Here one can claim whatever one wants anysay.On 2024-05-11 16:26:30 +0000, olcott said:I think he means, he is working on a definition that redefines the field to allow him to claim what he wants.
I am working on providing an academic quality definition of thisThe definition in Wikipedia is good enough.
term.
In if one wants to present ones claims on some significant forum then
it is better to stick to usual definitions as much as possible.
Sort of like his new definition of H as an "unconventional" machine that some how both returns an answer but also keeps on running.There are systems where that is possible but unsolvable problems are
unsolvable even in those systems.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
that can, return a value without (or before) termination.
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
a specific halt status value, for Turing Machines.
the wrong answer for input D. YES <is> the correct answer and H
can not SAY this answer in the conventional way.
That is a very modest goal as those programs are not deeded forHowever, we could accept that as a solution to the halting problemRefuting the HP pathological program/input pair is the the full scope
if one could prove that there is a Turing machine that can indicate
halting or non-halting that way for all computations.
of my theory of computation work. Even without my POD24 diagnosis I
would have no time to verify this against an infinite set of programs.
Once I conquer the HP pathological program/input pair andSo far it seems that you have not yet even started. You have not yet
apply to to the foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}
expressed as finite strings, then I am done.
"a sentence may fail to make a statement if it is paradoxical or ungrounded."It is hard to avoid such sentences, especially if you want to say something
*Outline of a Theory of Truth --- Saul Kripke*
https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
How to define a True(L, x) predicate that refutes Tarski Undefinability:That is solved: no matter how you define it, the definition is not
*AKA The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preservingThat is not useful if there is no way to determine whether True(L,x) is
operations from finite string expressions of language that have been
stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true.
False(L,x) isNeither is that. And hardly crative enough for copyright.
defined as True(L,~x). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.