Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 11/3/24 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 11:30:09 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/2/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 12:03:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/1/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-31 23:43:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:

On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
answering.

    I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.

Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a liar
I may politely pretend to believe.

>
     It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He is quite
often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or similar,
but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in terms
of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing that he
has a unique insight.

>
When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>
When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
the current received view of the theory of computation
is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
viewed as incorrect.

>
So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem because you are working in a new framework?

>
I am admitting one of two things:
(1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
actual input finite string.

>
The finite strings specifying the behaviour are not a part
of the halting problem. Any solution is required to contain
encoding rules for the creation of those strings.

>
Sure they are.

>
It is of course possible to present the problem in either way without
changing anything important. The most common way is to state that the
decider shall use descriptions of the Turing machine and the input
but the encoding rules are not specified. You can present the problem
with specific encoding rules or stating that the encoding of a specific
UTM shall be used. Doing so reduces the space of possible solutions but
does not affect the solvability.
>
So the most common presentation is that encoding rules are a part of
the solution but including them in the problem does not make a significant
difference.
>

(2) I am resolving the halting problem in a way that is
comparable to the way that ZFC resolved Russell's Paradox.

>
Problems shall be solved, not resolved. The expression "resolving
the halting problem" does not mean anything because the types of
the words are not compatible. A paradox is a different type so
it can be resolved.

>
It is iffy to say that ZFC solved Russell's Paradox because
it is not solving the original problem it is redefining the
basis of the problem.

>
Then don't say so. It would be better to say that ZFC (and before
it ZF and Z) avoids Russell's paradox.
>

>
It really is not even any change to the view of deciders to
know that they compute the mapping from their finite string
input to their own accept or reject state on the basis of a
semantic or syntactic property of this string.
>
My view does seems to be a change to how this semantic property
is string understood when applied to the halting problem proof.

>
It is not about how a preperty is understood but about the choice
of a property for discussion.
>

  The property is the property of the finite string DDD
emulated by HHH. DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own return instruction.
 

But that isn't a proper definitiom of a property that can be asked of a decider.

The property is not whether or not a different finite
string DDD NOT emulated by HHH. DDD NOT emulated by
HHH  DOES reach its own return instruction.

No, but it should be about the SAME finite string emulated to completion if it is to be a proper property of string.

 It is a verified fact that the pathological relationship
defined by DDD relative to HHH does change the behavior
of DDD. It seems ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this.

No, it doesn't change the OBJECTIVE property of the string.
Only your invalid subjective attempt at makeing something sort of like a property of the string that isn't.

 (a) It has always been ridiculously stupid to ignore this.
   or
(b) We change the foundations of the theory of computation
     to quit ignoring this. This resolves the HP proofs the
     same way that ZFC resolved RP.

Well, go ahead and try to do your (b).
One problem you will immediately hit on is the need to correctly define what a program is (since you representation for DDD doesn't actually represent the program DDD in normal theory) and how to define what a semantic property is in you logic so it is still an objective property.

 Once we resolve the set of decision problems having
pathological self-reference we can build a universal
truth detector.

Nope. As pointed out, that isn't the only source of problems. It is perhaps the easiest to create to make it obvious, but there exist a number of other classes that make it impossible, but you have shown that you just can't understand how they work.

 Truth may be the most important thing in the universe
because without truth on very important issues life on
Earth can be too easily destroyed.
>

And it is a shame that you so poorly understand it. Your ideas can only work in system too simple to be useful in so many cases.