Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?)
14 views
Skip to first unread message
olcott
Sep 10, 2020, 3:14:17 PM9/10/20
to
On 9/10/2020 2:03 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 8:48:12 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 16:29:42 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2020 8:04 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>
>>>> H can't deal with H_Hat. So, formally, H can't exist. But really all we've shown
>>>> is that the defintion is "H" is bad. It needs a little tweak.
>>>>
>>> I have not seen where anyone has shown that the definition of H is bad.
>>>
>> Q. Who is the village barber?
>> A. "The village barber is the man who shaves all the men in the village, except
>> for those who shave themselves".
>>
>> A good or a bad definition of the village barber? It depends what you mean.
>> If you are non-English speaker who doesn't know what the word "barber"
>> means, this explanation will probably convey the right information. If you
>> are a logician, it's a logical impossibility.
>>
>> Similarly with the H / H_Hat argument. An H that decides on H itself (essentially,
>> you've got to flip the result and add an infinite loop) is a logical impossibility.
>>
>> But that doesn't tell us much more about halt deciders than the barber paradox
>> tells us about barbers.
>
> Off topic but ..
>
> We should update the paradox. Almost nobody is shaved by a barber
> these days. I suggest changing to cutting hair.
>
> The barber cuts the hair of every one who does not cut their own hair.
>
The barber paradox and its Russell's paradox equivalent are simply
incoherent and nothing more. The only reason that they are interesting
is that they point to an inherent flaw in the understanding of these
things.
All paradoxes including all undecidable decision problems (such as
Tarski and Gödel) really only point out that human understanding of
these things is flawed.
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 8:48:12 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 16:29:42 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2020 8:04 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>
>>>> H can't deal with H_Hat. So, formally, H can't exist. But really all we've shown
>>>> is that the defintion is "H" is bad. It needs a little tweak.
>>>>
>>> I have not seen where anyone has shown that the definition of H is bad.
>>>
>> Q. Who is the village barber?
>> A. "The village barber is the man who shaves all the men in the village, except
>> for those who shave themselves".
>>
>> A good or a bad definition of the village barber? It depends what you mean.
>> If you are non-English speaker who doesn't know what the word "barber"
>> means, this explanation will probably convey the right information. If you
>> are a logician, it's a logical impossibility.
>>
>> Similarly with the H / H_Hat argument. An H that decides on H itself (essentially,
>> you've got to flip the result and add an infinite loop) is a logical impossibility.
>>
>> But that doesn't tell us much more about halt deciders than the barber paradox
>> tells us about barbers.
>
> Off topic but ..
>
> We should update the paradox. Almost nobody is shaved by a barber
> these days. I suggest changing to cutting hair.
>
> The barber cuts the hair of every one who does not cut their own hair.
>
The barber paradox and its Russell's paradox equivalent are simply
incoherent and nothing more. The only reason that they are interesting
is that they point to an inherent flaw in the understanding of these
things.
All paradoxes including all undecidable decision problems (such as
Tarski and Gödel) really only point out that human understanding of
these things is flawed.
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
Jeff Barnett
Sep 10, 2020, 6:23:21 PM9/10/20
to
(not derived from an inheritance model) there. The Barber of Seville is
not incoherent, it's merely paradoxical and that makes it fun and a
little interesting. The fact is that mathematicians and logicians
learned a lot from so called paradoxes and made them do formal work:
improving fundamental definitions, deriving contradictions in proofs,
providing material for puzzle books, and keeping some cranks busy by
taking there attention away from their drab lives. Deep understanding of
the areas on the boundary between paradox and insight fuel some of the
most interesting and beautiful mathematics in the world.
--
Jeff Barnett
olcott
Sep 10, 2020, 6:40:35 PM9/10/20
to
corrected the flaws with naive set theory on the basis of this paradox.
olcott
Sep 11, 2020, 10:12:27 PM9/11/20
to
On 9/11/2020 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2020-09-11, olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>> I understand exactly how my claim seems to be and how it really seems to
>> be necessarily false. Things are not always as they seem to be.
>
> The claim is in a holding pattern, and not evolving at all. While that
> continues, it will continue to seem the way it seems.
>
This claim is in a holding pattern awaiting the completion of its
necessary infrastructure:
I (will soon) have an x86 partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent
to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ thus proving the
H/Ĥ template does not prevent a correct halting decision.
In the last two weeks I completed the boring and tedious job of getting
the x86 emulator to directly execute the COFF object files generated by
the Microsoft C compiler on both Windows and Linux. I had this working
previously under Windows yet one of my updates broke something that had
to be fixed.
> On 2020-09-11, olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>> I understand exactly how my claim seems to be and how it really seems to
>> be necessarily false. Things are not always as they seem to be.
>
> The claim is in a holding pattern, and not evolving at all. While that
> continues, it will continue to seem the way it seems.
>
This claim is in a holding pattern awaiting the completion of its
necessary infrastructure:
I (will soon) have an x86 partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent
to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ thus proving the
H/Ĥ template does not prevent a correct halting decision.
In the last two weeks I completed the boring and tedious job of getting
the x86 emulator to directly execute the COFF object files generated by
the Microsoft C compiler on both Windows and Linux. I had this working
previously under Windows yet one of my updates broke something that had
to be fixed.
André G. Isaak
Sep 12, 2020, 2:25:58 AM9/12/20
to
On 2020-09-11 20:12, olcott wrote:
> On 9/11/2020 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2020-09-11, olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>> I understand exactly how my claim seems to be and how it really seems to
>>> be necessarily false. Things are not always as they seem to be.
>>
>> The claim is in a holding pattern, and not evolving at all. While that
>> continues, it will continue to seem the way it seems.
>>
>
> This claim is in a holding pattern awaiting the completion of its
> necessary infrastructure:
The problem is that all this 'infrastructure' should be entirely
> On 9/11/2020 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2020-09-11, olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>> I understand exactly how my claim seems to be and how it really seems to
>>> be necessarily false. Things are not always as they seem to be.
>>
>> The claim is in a holding pattern, and not evolving at all. While that
>> continues, it will continue to seem the way it seems.
>>
>
> This claim is in a holding pattern awaiting the completion of its
> necessary infrastructure:
unnecessary. You don't need an x86 emulator. You just need to provide
the C code for H and Ĥ. Either you have these or you don't. If you have
them, you should provide them. If you don't have them, then you cannot
actually claim that your H can decide whether Ĥ(Ĥ) halts.
Until you provide these, there is absolutely no point in claiming that
you have accomplished something. Claiming you have some "special
insight" but refusing to state what that is doesn't exactly bolster your
credibility.
André
> I (will soon) have an x86 partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent
> to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ thus proving the
> H/Ĥ template does not prevent a correct halting decision.
>
> In the last two weeks I completed the boring and tedious job of getting
> the x86 emulator to directly execute the COFF object files generated by
> the Microsoft C compiler on both Windows and Linux. I had this working
> previously under Windows yet one of my updates broke something that had
> to be fixed.
>
--
service.
olcott
Sep 12, 2020, 9:06:54 AM9/12/20
to
On 9/12/2020 1:25 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2020-09-11 20:12, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/11/2020 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2020-09-11, olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>> I understand exactly how my claim seems to be and how it really
>>>> seems to
>>>> be necessarily false. Things are not always as they seem to be.
>>>
>>> The claim is in a holding pattern, and not evolving at all. While that
>>> continues, it will continue to seem the way it seems.
>>>
>>
>> This claim is in a holding pattern awaiting the completion of its
>> necessary infrastructure:
>
> The problem is that all this 'infrastructure' should be entirely
> unnecessary. You don't need an x86 emulator. You just need to provide
> the C code for H and Ĥ. Either you have these or you don't. If you have
> them, you should provide them. If you don't have them, then you cannot
> actually claim that your H can decide whether Ĥ(Ĥ) halts.
>
I Have explained this too many times now.The fact that you fail to
> On 2020-09-11 20:12, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/11/2020 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2020-09-11, olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>> I understand exactly how my claim seems to be and how it really
>>>> seems to
>>>> be necessarily false. Things are not always as they seem to be.
>>>
>>> The claim is in a holding pattern, and not evolving at all. While that
>>> continues, it will continue to seem the way it seems.
>>>
>>
>> This claim is in a holding pattern awaiting the completion of its
>> necessary infrastructure:
>
> The problem is that all this 'infrastructure' should be entirely
> unnecessary. You don't need an x86 emulator. You just need to provide
> the C code for H and Ĥ. Either you have these or you don't. If you have
> them, you should provide them. If you don't have them, then you cannot
> actually claim that your H can decide whether Ĥ(Ĥ) halts.
>
comprehend how my answers are correct does not actually make them
incorrect.
> Until you provide these, there is absolutely no point in claiming that
> you have accomplished something. Claiming you have some "special
> insight" but refusing to state what that is doesn't exactly bolster your
> credibility.
>
will be evaluated. Too many times in this forum I totally proved my
point and no one noticed because they were so sure that I must be
incorrect that they did not pay enough attention.
THERE IS NO CORRECT REBUTTAL OF THIS:
For example it is true that framing the infrastructure of analytical
truth around the sound deductive inference model circumvents 1931 Gödel
Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability. When we do this true and
provable cannot possibly diverge. If it is true then it is the
conclusion of sound deduction, if it is not the conclusion of sound
deduction then it doesn't count as true.
I will soon have a UTM equivalent that executes a partial halt decider
sufficiently equivalent to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the
Linz Ĥ proving that Ĥ on input Ĥ is decidable.
> André
>
>> I (will soon) have an x86 partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent
>> to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ thus proving
>> the H/Ĥ template does not prevent a correct halting decision.
>>
>> In the last two weeks I completed the boring and tedious job of
>> getting the x86 emulator to directly execute the COFF object files
>> generated by the Microsoft C compiler on both Windows and Linux. I had
>> this working previously under Windows yet one of my updates broke
>> something that had to be fixed.
>>
>
>
--
0 new messages