Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 3/11/2024 7:09 PM, immibis wrote:There's a right answer. It just isn't the one that H gives.On 11/03/24 14:19, olcott wrote:This proves that both Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ are being asked*Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*>
You agree. And since every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the same answer as H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (it is stipulated) then obviously H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ also gets the wrong answer.
>
a YES/NO question where bot YES and NO are the wrong answer.
Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.Whenever anyone or anything is asks a YES/NO question>It is also true that every instance of that question has a right answer, it just isn't the one that H gives.>
>
Every decision problem that includes undecidable instances only has
these instances because there is something wrong with the decision
problem specification.
so what is wrong with it?
>
where both YES and NO are the wrong answer the whole
question is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
The gist of his idea is that S is not even a program. That is incredibly wrong and stupid. If H is a program, then S is a program.The gist of his idea is correct even if the exact words are not.The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt>
test exists and then provides S as an example of a program
that the test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all.
It is not even a conceptual object, and this is due to
inconsistencies in the specification of the halting function.
(Stoddart: 2017)
If you tell me a consistent universal halt test I will tell you a consistent program that the test cannot handle. It will definitely be a program. There will be no valid rebuttal that it isn't a program at all.
Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.When we ask Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ whether Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩*This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*>
*This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
*This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
>
When we ask H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩:
Does your input halt on its input?
We do not ask it that. We ask it whether Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩. This is an objective specification, not subjective.
>
both YES and NO are the wrong answer for Ĥ.H.
When we ask someone: Are you more than 20 years old?Once we understand that "Does Ĥ halt on input ⟨Ĥ⟩?" is a non-subjective question, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
who you ask changes the correct answer.
We can do several different things to abolish the self-contradictory question. One of them is rephrase the question:This creates ambiguity and allows for equivocation, a dishonest argument technique.
Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
You can answer it as many ways as you want, but only one of them is right. Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.H(D,D) and H1(D,D) are fully implemented to answer that questionmeaning: Would Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input, then H gets the wrong answer.>
>
When we ask the exact same question meaning:
Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
We can't ask that question because it is subjective. And that is a different question.
>
several different ways. Two for recursive simulation and one each
for infinite loops and infinite recursion.
nonsense detectedH(D,D) and H1(D,D) correctly answer that question for threeThen every H always gets the right answer.>
If you ask me to recite Einstein's equations, I will answer wrong. If you ask me 1+1, I will answer right. That I answer correctly to one question has no relevance to that I answer incorrectly to another question.
complete categories of non-terminating behavior. It may be
unlimited variation within the category.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.