A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem
in [Theory]
|
From: MoeBlee on 17 Oct 2006 19:14 Peter Olcott wrote: > "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1161126035.398008.237140(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> The conclusion that a universal halt detector can not be constructed is > >> incorrect. The proofs do not show that a universal halt-detector can not be > >> constructed. The proofs only show that a universal halt-detector can not > >> provide > >> the results of its analysis in the case of malignant self-reference where the > >> caller uses the results to change the outcome of the analysis. > > > > The proof is of a mathematical theorem. Whatever that has to do with a > > "universal halt detector", I'll leave you to you. Meanwhile, "malignant > > self-reference" has nothing to do with the mathematical theorem and > > proof. > > > > MoeBlee > > > > The "Halting Problem" is about "Halting". The mathematics is an attempt to > create a mathematical formalism that corresponds to the concept of halting. The halting of a Turing machine, which is not a physical computer, but rather is a mathematical object. MoeBlee
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 19:24 "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161126868.246164.277940(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Peter Olcott wrote: >> "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1161126035.398008.237140(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > Peter Olcott wrote: >> >> The conclusion that a universal halt detector can not be constructed is >> >> incorrect. The proofs do not show that a universal halt-detector can not >> >> be >> >> constructed. The proofs only show that a universal halt-detector can not >> >> provide >> >> the results of its analysis in the case of malignant self-reference where >> >> the >> >> caller uses the results to change the outcome of the analysis. >> > >> > The proof is of a mathematical theorem. Whatever that has to do with a >> > "universal halt detector", I'll leave you to you. Meanwhile, "malignant >> > self-reference" has nothing to do with the mathematical theorem and >> > proof. >> > >> > MoeBlee >> > >> >> The "Halting Problem" is about "Halting". The mathematics is an attempt to >> create a mathematical formalism that corresponds to the concept of halting. > > The halting of a Turing machine, which is not a physical computer, but > rather is a mathematical object. > > MoeBlee > A mathematical abstraction that could be represented as an actual physical device.
From: Patricia Shanahan on 17 Oct 2006 19:28 MoeBlee wrote: > Peter Olcott wrote: >> The conclusion that a universal halt detector can not be constructed is >> incorrect. The proofs do not show that a universal halt-detector can not be >> constructed. The proofs only show that a universal halt-detector can not provide >> the results of its analysis in the case of malignant self-reference where the >> caller uses the results to change the outcome of the analysis. > > The proof is of a mathematical theorem. Whatever that has to do with a > "universal halt detector", I'll leave you to you. Meanwhile, "malignant > self-reference" has nothing to do with the mathematical theorem and > proof. "Malignant self-reference" is also, as far as I know, undefined in computer science. Patricia
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 19:35 "Patricia Shanahan" <pats(a)acm.org> wrote in message news:zGdZg.15330$UG4.11773(a)newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > MoeBlee wrote: >> Peter Olcott wrote: >>> The conclusion that a universal halt detector can not be constructed is >>> incorrect. The proofs do not show that a universal halt-detector can not be >>> constructed. The proofs only show that a universal halt-detector can not >>> provide >>> the results of its analysis in the case of malignant self-reference where >>> the >>> caller uses the results to change the outcome of the analysis. >> >> The proof is of a mathematical theorem. Whatever that has to do with a >> "universal halt detector", I'll leave you to you. Meanwhile, "malignant >> self-reference" has nothing to do with the mathematical theorem and >> proof. > > "Malignant self-reference" is also, as far as I know, undefined in > computer science. > > Patricia Malignant self-reference is the term that one of the respondents on this group provided for the self-reference in the halting problem. It is malignant in the sense that it is self-modifying program, that modifies itself in such a way as to prevent itself from functioning correctly.
From: MoeBlee on 17 Oct 2006 19:46
Peter Olcott wrote: > A mathematical abstraction that could be represented as an actual physical > device. Approximations by a physical device. No physical object is a Turing machine. A Turing machine is a mathematical object. MoeBlee |