| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<dTmdnXMgjqW1gWz4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.22.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:23:20 +0000 Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic References: <usq5uq$e4sh$1@dont-email.me> <usq715$ed9g$3@dont-email.me> <usq8rh$etp9$1@dont-email.me> <usqb4a$1l201$32@i2pn2.org> <usqcts$froc$1@dont-email.me> <usqh4h$1lvbo$3@i2pn2.org> <usqhoj$gtih$2@dont-email.me> <usql2f$1m5uu$2@i2pn2.org> <usqmdi$hu9o$1@dont-email.me> <usqnf6$1m5ut$6@i2pn2.org> <usqok0$hubd$4@dont-email.me> <usr309$1mk0f$1@i2pn2.org> <usr4e7$kdfp$4@dont-email.me> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:23:29 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <usr4e7$kdfp$4@dont-email.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <dTmdnXMgjqW1gWz4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 225 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-6v2aJ9zx1BKQZqNaapC5TkeyAlpna2vk9e2HeK/gBMhBWQrmS+n8VycVJ3YWtWRoFIJeX6clDIUDR/V!nhEIdBhB7Dbc0SxXZmCIpmT1c2j0crmMTqL1ke6QiSPjho81LF4eLRJP4aq3NzAauyd0iLvQxSCL!rA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 10532 On 03/12/2024 07:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/12/2024 9:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/12/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/12/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 3/12/24 3:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 3/12/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 12:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:31 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:12, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders >>>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions | >>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is some input TMD to every H such that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And it can be a different TMD to each H. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we disallow decider/input pairs that are incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions where both YES and NO are the wrong answer >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right >>>>>>>>>>>> answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and >>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does >>>>>>>>>>> not halt >>>>>>>>>>> BOTH YES AND NO ARE THE WRONG ANSWER FOR EVERY Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, because a given H will only go to one of the answers. THAT >>>>>>>>>> will be wrong, and the other one right. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders >>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions | >>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not exactly. A pair of otherwise identical machines that >>>>>>>>> (that are contained within the above specified set) >>>>>>>>> only differ by return value will both be wrong on the >>>>>>>>> same pathological input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You mean a pair of DIFFERENT machines. Any difference is different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a >>>>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return >>>>>>> value of its decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean >>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions | >>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD) >>>>> >>>>> Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a >>>>> corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return >>>>> value of its Boolean_TM. >>>> >>>> That isn't in the set above. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that >>>>> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the >>>>> same question is also proven to be incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Nope, since both aren't in the set selected. >>>> >>> >>> When they are deciders that must get the correct answer both >>> of them are not in the set. >> >> *IF* they are correct decider. >> >> WHen we select from all Turing Machine Deciders, there is no >> requirement that any of them get any particular answer right. >> >> So, ALL deciders are in the set that we cycle through and apply the >> following logic to ALL of them. >> >> Each is them paired with an input that it will get wrong, and the >> existance of the input was what as just proven, the ^ template >> >>> >>> When they are Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean the this >>> set inherently includes identical pairs that only differ >>> by return value. >> >> But in the step of select and input that they will get wrong, they >> will be givne DIFFERENT inputs. >> >>> >>>> You just don't understand what that statement is saying. >>>> >>>> I've expalined it, but it seems over you head. >>>> >>> No the problem is that you are not paying attention. >> >> No, you keep on making STUPID mistakes, like thinking that select a >> input that the machine will get wrong needs to be the same for two >> differnt machines. >> >> >> >>> >>>> For Every H, we show we can find at least one input (chosen just for >>>> that machine) that it will get wrong. >>>> >>> When we use machine templates then we can see instances of >>> the same machine that only differs by return value where both >>> get the wrong answer on the same input. By same input I mean >>> the same finite string of numerical values. >>> >> >> But if they returned differnt values, they will have different >> descriptions. >> >> Otherwise, how could a UTM get the right answer, since it only gets >> the description. > > We can get around all of this stuff by simply using this criteria: > Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM > *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct* > (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper) > (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > unless aborted then > (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > *When we apply this criteria* (elaborated above) > Will you halt if you never abort your simulation? > *Then the halting problem is conquered* > > When two different machines implementing this criteria > get different results from identical inputs then we > know that Pathological Self-Reference has been detected. > > We don't even need to know that for: > *denial-of-service-attack detection* > *NO always means reject as unsafe* > But, Halting theorem never said "there's an input that halts all machines", it just says "for any machine, there's an input that halts it". Where "halt the machine" means "put it in an infinite loop". So, rather, Halting theorem never said "there's an input that exhausts all machines", it just says, "for any machine, there's an input that exhausts it". I still don't see how that would be with infinite tapes though, without a means of checking all the way right the tape in one step, i.e. that it's 1's or 0's or any pattern at all, any input that unbounded with respect to the machine basically exhausts it or where the machine would run in the unbounded. Of course any finite tape, has a static analysis that is not infinite, that decides whether or not it halts (or, loops, or grows, the state space of the decider). Static analysis has to either enumerate or _infer_ the state-space, where equal values in what's determined the idempotent can detect loops, while inequalities or proven divergence, ..., can detect unbounded growth. Now, proving convergence or divergence is its own kind of thing. For example, there are series that converge ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========