A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem
in [Theory]
|
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Oct 2006 20:38 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ehboq302j8a(a)drn.newsguy.com... > Peter Olcott says... > >>If someone corrupted your output mechanism by tying you up and taping >>your mouth shut, what correct answer would you provide? > > If my mouth were taped shut, I wouldn't provide a correct answer. > But that doesn't make the question ill-formed. The question is > perfectly well-formed, even though WillHalt fails to give the > right answer, and me with my mouth taped up fails to give the > right answer. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY > Does tying you up, and taping your mouth shut make the problem undecidable for you, or do you still know that the program will halt, even though you can't tell anyone?
From: Chris Menzel on 20 Oct 2006 21:16 On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:55:28 -0500, Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> said: > > "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel(a)remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message > news:slrnejhtaf.297d.cmenzel(a)philebus.tamu.edu... >> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:27:32 -0500, Peter Olcott >> <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> said: >>> >>> <sillybanter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:nGYZg.3795$4T6.1868(a)trnddc02... >>>>> Iff (if and only if) I can reach a consensus on this >>>>> point, I will proceed to a UTM version of the same problem, and >>>>> attempt to show the mathematical mapping from the prior example to >>>>> the UTM example. I will not do this unless or until I have reached a >>>>> consensus on my prior point. >>>> >>>> You will not get consensus on this point, because you're wrong, and >>>> pretty much everyone here except you sees that quite clearly. >>> >>> Or, pretty much everyone here does not 100% completely grasp every >>> subtle nuance of the complete meaning of my statements. >> >> Or not. :-) What are the odds, dude? >> > 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. Yes, yes indeed, far more likely that Turing, Church, and the thousands of logicians, mathematicians, and theoretical computer scientists following in their wake have been, and remain, confused, than that you, Peter Olcott, should be confused. I don't know *why* I didn't see that.
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Oct 2006 21:41 "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel(a)remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message news:slrnejit6s.297d.cmenzel(a)philebus.tamu.edu... > On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:55:28 -0500, Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> > said: >> >> "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel(a)remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message >> news:slrnejhtaf.297d.cmenzel(a)philebus.tamu.edu... >>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:27:32 -0500, Peter Olcott >>> <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> said: >>>> >>>> <sillybanter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:nGYZg.3795$4T6.1868(a)trnddc02... >>>>>> Iff (if and only if) I can reach a consensus on this >>>>>> point, I will proceed to a UTM version of the same problem, and >>>>>> attempt to show the mathematical mapping from the prior example to >>>>>> the UTM example. I will not do this unless or until I have reached a >>>>>> consensus on my prior point. >>>>> >>>>> You will not get consensus on this point, because you're wrong, and >>>>> pretty much everyone here except you sees that quite clearly. >>>> >>>> Or, pretty much everyone here does not 100% completely grasp every >>>> subtle nuance of the complete meaning of my statements. >>> >>> Or not. :-) What are the odds, dude? >>> >> 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. > > Yes, yes indeed, far more likely that Turing, Church, and the thousands > of logicians, mathematicians, and theoretical computer scientists > following in their wake have been, and remain, confused, than that you, > Peter Olcott, should be confused. I don't know *why* I didn't see that. > That sure does seem implausible doesn't it? I have found by careful analytical reasoning the plausibility is possibly erroneous in at least some cases.
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Oct 2006 21:52 "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel(a)remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message news:slrnejit6s.297d.cmenzel(a)philebus.tamu.edu... > On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:55:28 -0500, Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> > said: >> >> "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel(a)remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message >> news:slrnejhtaf.297d.cmenzel(a)philebus.tamu.edu... >>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:27:32 -0500, Peter Olcott >>> <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> said: >>>> >>>> <sillybanter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:nGYZg.3795$4T6.1868(a)trnddc02... >>>>>> Iff (if and only if) I can reach a consensus on this >>>>>> point, I will proceed to a UTM version of the same problem, and >>>>>> attempt to show the mathematical mapping from the prior example to >>>>>> the UTM example. I will not do this unless or until I have reached a >>>>>> consensus on my prior point. >>>>> >>>>> You will not get consensus on this point, because you're wrong, and >>>>> pretty much everyone here except you sees that quite clearly. >>>> >>>> Or, pretty much everyone here does not 100% completely grasp every >>>> subtle nuance of the complete meaning of my statements. >>> >>> Or not. :-) What are the odds, dude? >>> >> I think that the odds that the fundamental concept of truth is broken are far >> less than the odds of many people being confused for many decades. > > Yes, yes indeed, far more likely that Turing, Church, and the thousands > of logicians, mathematicians, and theoretical computer scientists > following in their wake have been, and remain, confused, than that you, > Peter Olcott, should be confused. I don't know *why* I didn't see that. > Here is a reasonably possible scenario, and the one that I am proposing. It is not that all these people got the math wrong, they did not get the math wrong. It is the natural language conclusions that they derived from the mathematical conclusions that are incorrect. Specifically calling the HP undecidable, is the error. It might be undecidable in some artificially contrived sense that has nothing to do with whether or not a decision can be made, but, then this would be the error.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 20 Oct 2006 22:26
In sci.logic, Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:27:32 -0500 <994_g.31403$eZ4.17153(a)dukeread06>: > > <sillybanter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:nGYZg.3795$4T6.1868(a)trnddc02... >> In comp.theory Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)seescreen.com> wrote: >>> >>> <sillybanter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:SrLZg.5348$NK5.2906(a)trnddc08... >>> > In comp.theory Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)seescreen.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> That seems to be a very precise English language statement that is >>> >> most typically used to describe the results of the HP. It is this >>> >> statement that I refute. I may be wrong, I have been wrong before, >>> >> but, it is still this specific statement that I refute. The HP can >>> >> be decided, yet the answer can not be restricted to YES or NO >>> >> because the question is not a YES or NO question. >>> > >>> > There are certainly problems that are ill-formed, but the halting >>> > problem is not one of those. Deal with the real form of the halting >> >>> I think that I have shown in my prior response to you at least one >>> example of a halting problem, that is only a problem because it is >>> ill formed. >> >> No, you certainly haven't. The halting problem is not ill-formed, and >> has a well-defined answer for each and every input. Including the one >> that you think, for some reason, doesn't have a yes or no answer. >> >>> Iff (if and only if) I can reach a consensus on this >>> point, I will proceed to a UTM version of the same problem, and >>> attempt to show the mathematical mapping from the prior example to >>> the UTM example. I will not do this unless or until I have reached a >>> consensus on my prior point. >> >> You will not get consensus on this point, because you're wrong, and >> pretty much everyone here except you sees that quite clearly. >> >> -- >> >> Steve Stringer >> sillybanter(a)gmail.com >> > > Or, pretty much everyone here does not 100% completely grasp every subtle nuance > of the complete meaning of my statements. > Probably not. However, did you have an implementation (Turing Machine, infinite-register pseudoassembly, pseudocode, Java, SQL queries, etc.) that will in fact solve the Halting Problem, complete with detection of the MalignantSelfReferenceException? An URL will do. :-) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123: std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i); -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |