A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem
in [Theory]
|
From: Jens Auer on 20 Oct 2006 17:31 Peter Olcott schrieb: > > How do check for this? Do you just search for the string "WillHalt" with > > needed parameters? > > It can do a simulated execution trace using the SourceCode for LoopIfHalts(), > and its own SourceCode, if needed. So, the set of all programs which are MalignantSelfReference is the set of all programs equivalent to LoopIfHalts? Is this what you want to check? What do you do if the given source code is not equivalent, but does not terminate? Remember, we are in the process of deciding if it halts, so we do not know yet if it does or doesn't. Anyway, program equivalence is itself undecidable. You have won nothing. Instead of talking around it, take a minute and write down your algorithm to check if a program is MalignantSelfReference.
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Oct 2006 17:43 "Jens Auer" <jens.muaddib(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:1161379917.023649.306150(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Peter Olcott schrieb: > >> > How do check for this? Do you just search for the string "WillHalt" with >> > needed parameters? >> >> It can do a simulated execution trace using the SourceCode for LoopIfHalts(), >> and its own SourceCode, if needed. > So, the set of all programs which are MalignantSelfReference is the set > of all programs equivalent to LoopIfHalts? Is this what you want to To make my points in prerequisite order, we only need to assume that MalignantSelfReference() will correctly work for this single isolated example. > check? What do you do if the given source code is not equivalent, but > does not terminate? Remember, we are in the process of deciding if it > halts, so we do not know yet if it does or doesn't. > Anyway, program equivalence is itself undecidable. You have won > nothing. > Instead of talking around it, take a minute and write down your > algorithm to check if a program is MalignantSelfReference. >
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Oct 2006 17:45 <sillybanter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:H0b_g.42$rx.8(a)trnddc04... > In comp.theory Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)seescreen.com> wrote: >> "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:ehab9n01r9b(a)drn.newsguy.com... >> > Aatu Koskensilta says... >> >> >> >>Jack Campin - bogus address wrote: >> >>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote: >> >>>> if (MalignantSelfReference(SourceCode, InputData)) >> >>> >> >>> This isn't code, it's wishful thinking. You haven't proved that >> >>> any such function as MalignantSelfReference can exist, you haven't >> >>> programmed it, and you haven't proved that it always returns a value. >> >>> >> >>> For that matter you haven't even *specified* it. >> >> >> >>He has said something to the effect that a program contains "malignant >> >>self-reference" if it has a call to Halt with its own source as an >> >>argument. >> > >> > I seem to remember an article from long ago in which Peter suggested >> > that tight computer security could be used to solve the halting >> > problem. The idea is that you keep the source code for Halt secret, >> > so that nobody can ever use it to generate a logical contradiction. >> > >> > -- >> > Daryl McCullough >> > Ithaca, NY > >> That entire line-or-reasoning had been correctly refuted by a PhD >> computer science professor calling themselves NewToMe. The >> line-of-reasoning that I am providing now is the only possible >> line-of-reasoning that could work within the categorically complete >> enumeration of every possible line-of-reasoning that could ever >> possibly exist. > > Actually, that's "NewsToMe" (Usenet News - get it?). > > I know that, because that was me -- I've just changed ISPs and posting > names now... > > -- > > Steve Stringer > sillybanter(a)gmail.com > So you are the PhD computer science professor that correctly refuted my prior line-of-reasoning? What was the basis for this correct refutation?
From: Jens Auer on 20 Oct 2006 18:12 Peter Olcott schrieb: > "Jens Auer" <jens.muaddib(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:1161379917.023649.306150(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Peter Olcott schrieb: > > > >> > How do check for this? Do you just search for the string "WillHalt" with > >> > needed parameters? > >> > >> It can do a simulated execution trace using the SourceCode for LoopIfHalts(), > >> and its own SourceCode, if needed. > > So, the set of all programs which are MalignantSelfReference is the set > > of all programs equivalent to LoopIfHalts? Is this what you want to > > To make my points in prerequisite order, we only need to assume that > MalignantSelfReference() will correctly work for this single isolated example. But then your MalignantSelfReference() is useless, since it would not recognize any transformed, but computationally equivalent function to LoopIfHalts(), because it contains just one set. These functions would form the contradictions for your Peter-Olcott-Halting-Problem in the same way as the real Halting Problem, so your WillHalt can't exist. If you insist on not defining either MalignantSelfReference() by a precise definition (*not* in informal english, but as an algorithm in some form) or the set of all functions it recognizes, the discussion is useless and a waste of time.
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Oct 2006 18:18
"Jens Auer" <jens.muaddib(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:1161382352.504072.11180(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Peter Olcott schrieb: > >> "Jens Auer" <jens.muaddib(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message >> news:1161379917.023649.306150(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Peter Olcott schrieb: >> > >> >> > How do check for this? Do you just search for the string "WillHalt" with >> >> > needed parameters? >> >> >> >> It can do a simulated execution trace using the SourceCode for >> >> LoopIfHalts(), >> >> and its own SourceCode, if needed. >> > So, the set of all programs which are MalignantSelfReference is the set >> > of all programs equivalent to LoopIfHalts? Is this what you want to >> >> To make my points in prerequisite order, we only need to assume that >> MalignantSelfReference() will correctly work for this single isolated >> example. > But then your MalignantSelfReference() is useless, since it would not No its not is proves the one prerequisite point so that we can then proceed to the next step. Once my point is proven within the specific context is this single isolated example, thenn (then and only then) we can proceed to generalize this point. There is no sense in generalizing any point that is not yet made. > recognize any transformed, but computationally equivalent function to > LoopIfHalts(), because it contains just one set. These functions would > form the contradictions for your Peter-Olcott-Halting-Problem in the > same way as the real Halting Problem, so your WillHalt can't exist. If > you insist on not defining either MalignantSelfReference() by a precise > definition (*not* in informal english, but as an algorithm in some > form) or the set of all functions it recognizes, the discussion is > useless and a waste of time. > |