Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 10:30:35 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:30:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="218330c1c4e97bfc3b405615ab2ac0d3"; logging-data="3047410"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sT9iYv7vfP02emv0L4yGE" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gi6wEUgYO/4hl7fEw1GhMQMxM9U= Bytes: 5102 On 2024-07-18 13:36:53 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/18/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-07-17 13:14:43 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/17/2024 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-07-16 14:46:40 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 7/16/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-07-15 13:32:27 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance >>>>>>>>> then your disagreement has no actual basis. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to* >>>>>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect* >>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non >>>>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting >>>>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing >>>>>>>>> with arithmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just >>>>>>>> like the uncomputability of halting is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem >>>>>>> is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior >>>>>>> of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of >>>>>>> whatever DDD reports. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is proven about the halting problem as that problem is. >>>>> >>>>> Which is simply a logical impossibility >>>> >>>> Yes, a halting decider is a logical impossibility, as can be and has >>>> been proven. >>> >>> If it is a logical impossibility then it places no >>> actual limit on computation otherwise we would have >>> "the CAD problem" of the logical impossibility of making >>> a CAD system that correctly draws a square circle. >> >> A logical impossibility does place a limit on computation. >> Otherwise it would be possible to build a CAD system that >> can correctly draw a square circle. > > Of the set of possible things TM's can do them all. Depends on the meanings of "possible" and "thing". Of things other than computation no TM can do any. A Turing machine can determine whether a sentence of Presburger arithmetic is provable but no Turing machine can determine whether a sentence of Peano arithmetic is provable. > One of the possible things is for a TM to to be a quadrillion > times smarter than any human at anything requiring human intelligence. Depends on the meaning of "smart" and how it is quantified. Often the meaning of "smart" includes that a good solution is found in a short time. Such meaning of "smart" is not even applicable to Turing machines as there is no time in the theory of Turing machines. The nearest is the number of steps needed for some computation, which is sometimes called time, but there are no such steps in human thinking, so no comparison can be made. > One thing isomorphic to the halting problem is the liar paradox. No, the paradox is not isomorphic to the problem. There are more details in the problem than in the paradox but isomorphism requires the same number of details. > Not even God can correctly determine whether this sentence is > true or false: "This sentence is not true". Why would God want to? -- Mikko