Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 3/11/2024 9:13 PM, immibis wrote:Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.On 12/03/24 02:11, olcott wrote:Troll detected.On 3/11/2024 7:09 PM, immibis wrote:>On 11/03/24 14:19, olcott wrote:>*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.
>
This proves that both Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ are being asked
a YES/NO question where bot YES and NO are the wrong answer.
There's a right answer. It just isn't the one that H gives.
>>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.
Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>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.
The gist of his idea is correct even if the exact words are not.
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.
>>>*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.
>
When we ask Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ whether Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩
both YES and NO are the wrong answer for Ĥ.H.
Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.