olcott
unread,Sep 19, 2021, 12:39:32 PM9/19/21You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
On 9/19/2021 11:11 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-09-19 09:46, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 10:40 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-19 08:34, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2021 11:19 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-18 22:10, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And note that Rice is talking about properties of Turing Machines
>>>>>> (or, more properly, of the language accepted by a TM), not
>>>>>> computations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I realized immediately after hitting 'send' that the above will no
>>>>> doubt confuse you since people have been telling you that Turing
>>>>> Machines can only express computations whereas C/x86 aren't thus
>>>>> constrained.
>>>>>
>>>>> A computation is a Turing Machine description PLUS an input string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rice's theorem is concerned with the Turing Machine's themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Linz proof shows that you cannot construct a halting decider,
>>>>> i.e. a decider which correctly determines for any given TM + input
>>>>> string pair, whether that pair represents a halting computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rice's theorem, on the other hand, would rule out the construction
>>>>> of something like a Decider Decider, i.e. a TM which takes as its
>>>>> input a TM description and determines whether that TM qualifies as
>>>>> a decider, i.e. is guaranteed to halt on *any* possible input.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is where I referred to my code defining a
>>>> a decidability decider nine days before you did:
>>>
>>> Where did I define or even mention a 'decidability decider'? Above I
>>> discussed (but did not define) a DECIDER decider, i.e. a TM which
>>> determines whether another TM qualifies as a decider.
>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2021 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> > It is the case that H(P,P)==0 is correct
>>>> > It is the case that H1((P,P)==1 is correct
>>>> > It is the case the this is inconsistent.
>>>> > It is the case that this inconsistency
>>>>
>>>> > defines a decidability decider that correctly
>>>> > defines a decidability decider that correctly
>>>> > defines a decidability decider that correctly
>>>>
>>>> > rejects P on the basis that P has the
>>>> > pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.
>>>
>>> So what exactly is it that the above is deciding? And how does this
>>> relate to Rice? If you want to claim this is somehow related to rice,
>>> you need to identify some semantic property that you claim to be able
>>> to decide.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> It is deciding that either H/P or H1/P form the pathological
>> self-reference error(Olcott 2004). As I said in 2004 this is the same
>> error as the Liar Paradox. This means that either H/P or H1/P are not
>> correctly decidable.
>
> The post in which I mentioned a 'decider decider' which you somehow
> misread as 'decidability decider' was intended to clarify a single
> sentence from an earlier post which you entirely ignored. Why don't you
> go back and actually read that earlier post and address the points made
> therein.
>
> Your ill-defined notion of a 'pathological self-reference error' doesn't
> appear to be a property of a Turing Machine, which is what Rice's
> theorem is concerned with. To the extent that it is a property at all,
> it appears to be a property of specific computations, so this has
> absolutely no relevance to Rice.
>
> André
>
It is the property of H(P,P).
u32 PSR_Olcott_2004(u32 P)
{
return H1(P,P) != H(P,P);
}
Decides that H(P,P) cannot correctly decide the halt status of its
input, thus a semantic property of H relative to P.
The Liar Paradox works this same way.
"This sentence is not true."
When it refers to itself it has the pathological self-reference
error(Olcott 2004).
This is the same as H(P,P) where the input to H refers to H.
When we transform the Liar Paradox so that it does not refer to itself
This sentence is not true: "2 + 3 = 7" then the pathological
self-reference error(Olcott 2004) is eliminated.
The same thing occurs with H1(P,P).
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein