Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: immibis Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Halt deciders accurately predict future behavior based on past behavior Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:09:05 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:09:07 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9416729331008e05b2a2bbdf5315a61a"; logging-data="3249600"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197SlCRc/0vb2SUAmapRGDp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:2S35TIVaXa3dpN4eKKHZpNTPeNE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2796 On 16/03/24 20:58, olcott wrote: > On 3/16/2024 2:56 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 16/03/24 19:19, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/16/2024 12:30 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 16/03/24 16:28, olcott wrote: >>>>> The original halt status criteria has the impossible requirement >>>>> that H(D,D) must report on behavior that it does not actually see. >>>>> Requiring H to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement. >>>> >>>> The purpose of a halting decider is to be clairvoyant. A halting >>>> decider must decide that a program will never halt even if we run it >>>> forever, without actually running it forever. >>>> >>> Not at all. Something like mathematical induction accurately >>> extrapolates what the future behavior would be: >> >> In other words: mathematical induction is clairvoyant. > > Not at all. Mathematical induction extrapolates on the basis of > what it sees. Requiring H(D,D) to report on behavior that it cannot > even see is incorrect. In other words: Mathematical induction reports on behaviour that it cannot even see.