A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem
in [Theory]
|
From: MoeBlee on 17 Oct 2006 19:50 Peter Olcott wrote: > 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. Which, has nothing to do with the halting problem. MoeBlee
From: Ben Bacarisse on 17 Oct 2006 20:03 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> writes: > "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1161118961.027553.142520(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> Peter Olcott wrote: >>> I will frame this in the terms of the Halting Problem because I understand >>> computer science much more deeply than math. >> >> Say what you want about computer science, but the statement of the >> unsolvability of the halting problem and the proof of the theorem are >> perfectly formed mathematics; the statement of the theorem and the >> proof are not "ill-formed" and is not analogous to division by zero, >> which has to do with conditional definition and descriptions that do >> not properly refer.. >> >> MoeBlee >> > > 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. I am curious. Do think that repeatedly re-stating your misunderstanding of the halting problem will persuade anyone? You have said the same thing in various ways to everyone who has posted, and they remain unmoved. Is it not time to start thinking that you may be mistaken? If not, let me ask a deeper question. What *would* start you thinking that you may be mistaken? -- Ben.
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 20:12 "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161128792.273677.157920(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > 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 > Yes, we aren't ever going to see the infinite tape storage.
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 20:16 "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161129027.125873.82790(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Peter Olcott wrote: >> 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. > > Which, has nothing to do with the halting problem. > > MoeBlee > http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/computersciencetheory/halting.html Are you saying that the root cause of the "Problem" aspect of the "Halting Problem" has nothing to do with self-reference?
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 20:18
"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message news:878xjetrqw.fsf(a)bsb.me.uk... > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> writes: > >> "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1161118961.027553.142520(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> I will frame this in the terms of the Halting Problem because I understand >>>> computer science much more deeply than math. >>> >>> Say what you want about computer science, but the statement of the >>> unsolvability of the halting problem and the proof of the theorem are >>> perfectly formed mathematics; the statement of the theorem and the >>> proof are not "ill-formed" and is not analogous to division by zero, >>> which has to do with conditional definition and descriptions that do >>> not properly refer.. >>> >>> MoeBlee >>> >> >> 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. > > I am curious. Do think that repeatedly re-stating your > misunderstanding of the halting problem will persuade anyone? You > have said the same thing in various ways to everyone who has posted, > and they remain unmoved. Is it not time to start thinking that you > may be mistaken? If not, let me ask a deeper question. What *would* > start you thinking that you may be mistaken? > > -- > Ben. http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/computersciencetheory/halting.html Are you saying that I am wrong when I am saying that self-reference is the root cause of the "problem" aspect of the "Halting Problem" ?? |