Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math
Suivi-à : sci.logic
Date : 04. Jul 2026, 09:58:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <112ahvi$sce$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 04/07/2026 06:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 9:43 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/3/2026 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 9:19 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/3/2026 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 8:58 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/3/2026 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>
If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, that is by definition a mapping.
That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
The coherent way that it actually works is that
inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
finite string transformation rules to inputs to
derive outputs.
>
Apparently you don't understand the difference between a mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>
André
>
>
A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
is not any sort of halt function.
>
He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>
André
>
>
A actual halt function must compute
The mathematical halting function:
>
>
When you actually implement this concretely
>
We find that it is not possible, as Linz and others have proved.
>
>
Impossible requirements are incorrect requirements.
>
>
Nope.  Requirements are requirements for a reason.  If they can't be satisfied, then that's just the way it is.
>
 The halting problem requires a decider that correctly reports the halt status of an input that does the opposite of whatever it reports. The meaning of these words prove that is logically impossible.
 
I would like to have a single algorithm that can tell me whether any arbitrary algorithm with a given input will halt when executed directly, but unfortunately no such algorithm exists.
 typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 01 int DD()
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   DD();
12   HHH(DD);
13 }
 HHH is not accountable to report on the
behavior of its caller on line 11.
It is if HHH reagards itself as a part of the input. But HHH is not
required to interprete the input that way. It could reject the input
for the undefined symbol HHH.
--
Mikko

Date Sujet#  Auteur
20 Apr 26 * Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA286olcott
21 Apr 26 +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA239Mikko
21 Apr 26 i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA238olcott
22 Apr 26 i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA237Mikko
22 Apr 26 i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA236olcott
22 Apr 26 i   +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA5Mikko
22 Apr 26 i   i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA4olcott
23 Apr 26 i   i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA3Mikko
23 Apr 26 i   i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2olcott
24 Apr 26 i   i   `- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Mikko
23 Apr 26 i   `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA230André G. Isaak
23 Apr 26 i    +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA4olcott
24 Apr 26 i    i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA3André G. Isaak
25 Apr 26 i    i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2Chris M. Thomasson
25 Apr 26 i    i  `- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Chris M. Thomasson
23 Apr 26 i    +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2Ross Finlayson
23 Apr 26 i    i`- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Ross Finlayson
20 Jun 26 i    `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA223Tristan Wibberley
20 Jun 26 i     `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA222olcott
27 Jun 26 i      `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA221Tristan Wibberley
27 Jun 26 i       +- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Ross Finlayson
27 Jun 26 i       `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA219polcott
28 Jun 26 i        +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA216Mikko
29 Jun 26 i        i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA215olcott
29 Jun07:14 i        i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA214Mikko
29 Jun14:29 i        i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA213olcott
29 Jun18:05 i        i   +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA196André G. Isaak
29 Jun19:16 i        i   i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA195olcott
29 Jun19:29 i        i   i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA194André G. Isaak
29 Jun20:08 i        i   i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA193olcott
29 Jun20:33 i        i   i   `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA192André G. Isaak
29 Jun20:47 i        i   i    `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA191olcott
29 Jun21:02 i        i   i     `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA190André G. Isaak
29 Jun21:06 i        i   i      `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA189olcott
29 Jun21:58 i        i   i       `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA188André G. Isaak
29 Jun22:10 i        i   i        `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA187olcott
29 Jun22:18 i        i   i         `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA186André G. Isaak
29 Jun22:39 i        i   i          `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA185olcott
29 Jun23:25 i        i   i           `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA184André G. Isaak
29 Jun23:38 i        i   i            `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA183olcott
30 Jun00:03 i        i   i             `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA182André G. Isaak
30 Jun00:36 i        i   i              `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA181olcott
30 Jun00:45 i        i   i               `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA180André G. Isaak
30 Jun01:37 i        i   i                `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA179olcott
30 Jun02:01 i        i   i                 `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA178André G. Isaak
30 Jun02:19 i        i   i                  `* The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics177olcott
30 Jun02:54 i        i   i                   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics176André G. Isaak
30 Jun03:17 i        i   i                    +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics174olcott
30 Jun03:31 i        i   i                    i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics173André G. Isaak
30 Jun03:42 i        i   i                    i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics172olcott
30 Jun03:49 i        i   i                    i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics171André G. Isaak
30 Jun04:06 i        i   i                    i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics170olcott
30 Jun22:18 i        i   i                    i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics169André G. Isaak
30 Jun22:45 i        i   i                    i     +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics162olcott
30 Jun22:56 i        i   i                    i     i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics161André G. Isaak
30 Jun23:04 i        i   i                    i     i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics160olcott
1 Jul03:34 i        i   i                    i     i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics159dbush
1 Jul03:57 i        i   i                    i     i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics158olcott
1 Jul04:02 i        i   i                    i     i    +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics155dbush
1 Jul04:10 i        i   i                    i     i    i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics154olcott
1 Jul04:17 i        i   i                    i     i    i +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics151dbush
1 Jul04:49 i        i   i                    i     i    i i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics150olcott
1 Jul05:01 i        i   i                    i     i    i i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics149dbush
1 Jul05:20 i        i   i                    i     i    i i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics148olcott
1 Jul12:55 i        i   i                    i     i    i i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics147dbush
1 Jul15:40 i        i   i                    i     i    i i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics146olcott
1 Jul18:33 i        i   i                    i     i    i i     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics145dbush
1 Jul19:01 i        i   i                    i     i    i i      `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics144olcott
1 Jul19:10 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics34André G. Isaak
1 Jul19:20 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics33olcott
1 Jul19:34 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics4dbush
1 Jul19:53 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics3olcott
1 Jul19:57 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2dbush
1 Jul20:06 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i i  `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1olcott
1 Jul19:40 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics28André G. Isaak
1 Jul19:50 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics27olcott
1 Jul20:23 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics26André G. Isaak
1 Jul20:47 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics25olcott
1 Jul21:11 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics24André G. Isaak
1 Jul21:28 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i      `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics23olcott
1 Jul21:50 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i       `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics22André G. Isaak
1 Jul21:52 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i        `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics21olcott
1 Jul22:10 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i         `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics20André G. Isaak
1 Jul23:43 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i          `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics19olcott
2 Jul00:09 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i           `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics18André G. Isaak
2 Jul01:05 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i            `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics17olcott
2 Jul01:39 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i             `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics16André G. Isaak
2 Jul02:01 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i              `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics15olcott
2 Jul02:23 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i               `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics14André G. Isaak
2 Jul03:03 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics13olcott
3 Jul06:02 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                 `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics12olcott
3 Jul15:45 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics11André G. Isaak
3 Jul17:48 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics10olcott
3 Jul18:17 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics9André G. Isaak
3 Jul19:12 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics8olcott
3 Jul19:21 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                      `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics7André G. Isaak
3 Jul19:38 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                       `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics6olcott
3 Jul19:46 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics4André G. Isaak
3 Jul21:43 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics3olcott
3 Jul22:22 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2André G. Isaak
4 Jul02:11 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        i  `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1olcott
4 Jul09:49 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1Mikko
1 Jul19:15 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics109dbush
1 Jul04:31 i        i   i                    i     i    i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2André G. Isaak
1 Jul04:04 i        i   i                    i     i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2dbush
30 Jun22:56 i        i   i                    i     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics6olcott
30 Jun03:26 i        i   i                    `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1olcott
30 Jun09:18 i        i   `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA16Mikko
29 Jun10:50 i        `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2Tristan Wibberley
26 Apr 26 +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA45olcott
30 Jun06:54 `- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Tristan Wibberley

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal