Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 05/05/2025 22:35, Mr Flibble wrote:When we examine this as 100% fully encoded in aOn Mon, 05 May 2025 21:57:42 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:You now acknowledge the existence of programs whose fate is undecidable. You give it a different name, sure, but it's the same thing.
>On 05/05/2025 21:03, Mr Flibble wrote:>On Mon, 05 May 2025 16:00:11 -0400, dbush wrote:>
<snip>
>>I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt>
when executed directly. It would be *very* useful to me if I had an
algorithm H that could tell me that in *all* possible cases. If so, I
could solve the Goldbach conjecture, among many other unsolved
problems.
>
Does an algorithm H exist that can tell me that or not?
That isn't what the halting problem is about at all:
Yes, it is.
>the halting problem is about pathological input being undecidable but>
not for the reason claimed in any halting problem proof.
By "pathological input", you mean a program the halt behaviour of which
is undecidable. So we are in agreement, even if you don't yet realise
it.
No we are not in agreement
and I suspect you are being dishonest and knowOn the contrary, when you talk about 'pathological input' you use the term to describe uncomputable mappings between programs and termination statuses, so you're rather closer to the truth than you perhaps intended.
this already.
To put it in terms you might be able to understand better:
Turing hypothesised the existence of a universal halt decider, but then showed that were such a decider to exist it would be possible to use it to create a 'pathological input' that it couldn't decide, so it follows that no decider can possibly be universal. /At best/, it can decide for all non-pathological inputs.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.