Sujet : Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 05. Jul 2025, 14:14:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <89d2edbab76401270efa67a8fbc135d5c47fefab@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/4/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/25 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/3/2025 10:02 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/3/2025 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/3/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/3/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/3/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
>
>
Yes there is no algorithm that does that
>
Excellent!
>
Let The Record Show
>
That Peter Olcott
>
Has *EXPLICITLY* admitted
>
That no algorithm H exists that meets the above requirements, which is precisely the theorem that the halting problem proofs prove.
>
In the exact same way that there is no set of all set
that contain themselves. ZFC did not solve Russell's
Paradox as much as it showed that Russell's Paradox
was anchored in an incoherent foundation, now called
naive set theory.
>
Which arose because the axioms of naive set theory created a contradiction.
>
>
Likewise with halt deciders that are required to report
on the behavior of directly executed Turing machines.
>
And what is the CONTRADICTION?
>
The result is just some things are not computable.
>
The result is that there cannot possibly be
an *ACTUAL INPUT* that does the opposite of
whatever its partial halt decider decides
thus the HP proof fails before it begins.
Sure there is.
Why doesn't P / D / DD actually do the opposite of what H decides?
Remember, "behavior" is DEFINED as what the machine it represents does when directly run, not does the partial simulation of it by the decider reach a final state.
Or alternativly, what a UTM would do with the input representing the FULL program.
Both of these REQUIRE that the code of the decider be included in "the input", not your lie of trying to claim to exclude it.
You are just proving your stupidity.
…