A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem
in [Theory]
|
From: Ben Bacarisse on 17 Oct 2006 20:28 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> writes: > "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? > > 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" ?? No, I did not say anything about that. I thought my questions were quite clear. Now I am curious as to why you have answered so few of the direct questions you have been asked. -- Ben.
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 20:37 "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message news:874pu2tqla.fsf(a)bsb.me.uk... > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> writes: > >> "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? >> >> 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" ?? > > No, I did not say anything about that. I thought my questions were > quite clear. > > Now I am curious as to why you have answered so few of the direct > questions you have been asked. > > -- > Ben. I would have to first know the specific details that you would consider that I might be wrong about before I could begin to consider than I might be wrong. In other words it must be an item by item point for point complete dialogue. Blanket statements are useless. What would it take for you to think that you might be wrong? (How open or closed it your mind?)
From: MoeBlee on 17 Oct 2006 20:41 Peter Olcott wrote: > "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? Define 'self-referential', 'malignantly self-referential', 'self-modifying', and 'functioning correctly' as mathematical predicates in the theory (or a theory) of which the unsolvability of the halting probelm is a theorem. And please tell me what standard textbook(s) you use as your basic reference for this subject so that I may consult those textbooks in order to appreciate your understanding of the theorem and the subject. MoeBlee
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 20:52 "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161132085.275067.259900(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Peter Olcott wrote: >> "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? > > Define 'self-referential', 'malignantly self-referential', > 'self-modifying', and 'functioning correctly' as mathematical > predicates in the theory (or a theory) of which the unsolvability of > the halting probelm is a theorem. Let's start with just one, that will (hopefully) get us on the same page more quickly: [functioning correctly] would mean that a software function consistently produces the results that it was designed to achieve. > > And please tell me what standard textbook(s) you use as your basic > reference for this subject so that I may consult those textbooks in > order to appreciate your understanding of the theorem and the subject. > > MoeBlee >
From: Peter Olcott on 17 Oct 2006 21:00
"MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161132085.275067.259900(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Peter Olcott wrote: >> "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? > > Define 'self-referential', 'malignantly self-referential', > 'self-modifying', and 'functioning correctly' as mathematical > predicates in the theory (or a theory) of which the unsolvability of > the halting probelm is a theorem. Its not just a theorem, it also has the practical consequence of placing (artificial) limits on eventual real world computation. > > And please tell me what standard textbook(s) you use as your basic > reference for this subject so that I may consult those textbooks in > order to appreciate your understanding of the theorem and the subject. > > MoeBlee > |