A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem
in [Theory]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 20 Oct 2006 19:43 Peter Olcott says... >"Daryl McCullough" <stevendarhyl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> No, you haven't. The way you described it, WillHalt will throw >> a "MalignantSelfReferenceException", which is not correctly answering >> the question. >> > >If you were WillHalt() what correct answer would you provide? If I were WillHalt, I would answer the way I was programmed to, which is to raise an exception. However, the correct answer in this case is "yes", LoopIfHalts(LoopIfHalts) halts (by throwing an exception). WillHalt fails to give the correct answer in this case, and if I were WillHalt, then I would fail to give the correct answer in this case. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Oct 2006 20:02 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ehbmv902e76(a)drn.newsguy.com... > Peter Olcott says... > >>"Daryl McCullough" <stevendarhyl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote > >>> No, you haven't. The way you described it, WillHalt will throw >>> a "MalignantSelfReferenceException", which is not correctly answering >>> the question. >>> >> >>If you were WillHalt() what correct answer would you provide? > > If I were WillHalt, I would answer the way I was programmed to, > which is to raise an exception. However, the correct answer in > this case is "yes", LoopIfHalts(LoopIfHalts) halts > (by throwing an exception). WillHalt fails to give the correct > answer in this case, and if I were WillHalt, then I would fail > to give the correct answer in this case. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY > If someone corrupted your output mechanism by tying you up and taping your mouth shut, what correct answer would you provide? Does tying you up, and taping your mouth shut make the problem undecidable?
From: Daryl McCullough on 20 Oct 2006 19:45 Peter Olcott says... >I think that the odds that the fundamental concept of truth is broken are far >less than the odds of many people being confused for many decades. Even better odds are that (1) the fundamental concept of truth is *not* broken, and (2) the halting problem is undecidable, as many people have concluded over the decades, and (3) that Peter Olcott is confused both about the halting problem and the concept of truth. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 20 Oct 2006 19:48 Peter Olcott says... >Right there is the error. This reasoning has not shown that the HP is >undecidable. There is a subtle but crucial distinction between deciding the >correct answer to a question, and providing a correct answer to a question. No, as far as computer programs are concerned, there is no difference. To say that a computer program can decide a question *means* that it provides the correct answer. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 20 Oct 2006 19:57
Peter Olcott says... >> Would you be so kind and show us how WillHalt accomplishes this, in a more >> precise form than a verbal comment? It all comes down to you definition of >> MalignantSelfReference, which I believe is itself undecidable. > >I have already said this quite a few times in the ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY. Actually, it doesn't matter. If WillHalt raises an exception, instead of answering "true" or "false", then it doesn't solve the halting problem in this instance. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |