2 views

Skip to first unread message

Jul 19, 2021, 3:33:38 PMJul 19

to

On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which

> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,

> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to

> examine) which rely on that mistake.

>

<snip error>

> /Flibble

>

Pathological Input to a halt decider is defined as any input that was

defined to do the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt decider

decides.

On Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 11:21:57 AM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

> The Liar Paradox can be shown to be nothing more than

> a incorrectly formed statement because of its pathological

> self-reference. The Halting Problem can only exist because

> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/RO9Z9eCabeE/m/Ka8-xS2rdEEJ

--

Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre

minds." Einstein

> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which

> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,

> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to

> examine) which rely on that mistake.

>

<snip error>

> /Flibble

>

Pathological Input to a halt decider is defined as any input that was

defined to do the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt decider

decides.

On Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 11:21:57 AM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

> The Liar Paradox can be shown to be nothing more than

> a incorrectly formed statement because of its pathological

> self-reference. The Halting Problem can only exist because

> of this same sort of pathological self-reference.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/RO9Z9eCabeE/m/Ka8-xS2rdEEJ

--

Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre

minds." Einstein

Jul 20, 2021, 9:52:39 AMJul 20

to

On 7/19/2021 2:40 PM, Peter wrote:

Now we construct a new Turing machine D with H as a subroutine. This new

TM calls H to determine what M does when the input to M is its own

description ⟨M⟩. Once D has determined this information, it does the

opposite. (Sipser:1997:165) http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf

Sipser, Michael 1997. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. Boston:

PWS Publishing Company (165-167)

> halt decider takes _any_ TM/tape pair and decides if that TM halts when

> processing that tape. ('Any' is a harmless exaggeration, obviously the

> tape symbols have to be ones in the TM's langugae.)

> illustrate that point). 'Pete Olcott struggles to understand self

> reference' does not mean 'self reference is pathological'.

> olcott wrote:

>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which

>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,

>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to

>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.

>> <snip error>

>>> /Flibble

>>>

>>

>> Pathological Input to a halt decider is defined as any input that was

>> defined to do the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt decider

>> decides.

>

> Then you're not talking about halt deciders as usually understood. A
>> On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>>> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which

>>> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,

>>> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to

>>> examine) which rely on that mistake.

>> <snip error>

>>> /Flibble

>>>

>>

>> Pathological Input to a halt decider is defined as any input that was

>> defined to do the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt decider

>> decides.

>

Now we construct a new Turing machine D with H as a subroutine. This new

TM calls H to determine what M does when the input to M is its own

description ⟨M⟩. Once D has determined this information, it does the

opposite. (Sipser:1997:165) http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf

Sipser, Michael 1997. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. Boston:

PWS Publishing Company (165-167)

> halt decider takes _any_ TM/tape pair and decides if that TM halts when

> processing that tape. ('Any' is a harmless exaggeration, obviously the

> tape symbols have to be ones in the TM's langugae.)

>

>>

>> On Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 11:21:57 AM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

>> > The Liar Paradox can be shown to be nothing more than

>> > a incorrectly formed statement because of its pathological

>> > self-reference. The Halting Problem can only exist because

>> > of this same sort of pathological self-reference.

>

> Not all self reference is pathological (one reason I chose my sig was to
>>

>> On Sunday, September 5, 2004 at 11:21:57 AM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

>> > The Liar Paradox can be shown to be nothing more than

>> > a incorrectly formed statement because of its pathological

>> > self-reference. The Halting Problem can only exist because

>> > of this same sort of pathological self-reference.

>

> illustrate that point). 'Pete Olcott struggles to understand self

> reference' does not mean 'self reference is pathological'.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu