| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<usvv71$1ss01$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:54:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 595 Message-ID: <usvv71$1ss01$1@dont-email.me> References: <usq5uq$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$4@dont-email.me> <dTmdnXMgjqW1gWz4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <gnmdnUr9ov3bv2z4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <usr8d3$on40$6@dont-email.me> <zUudnVekycgLcGz4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <usu1er$1ee5f$1@dont-email.me> <qRednSB3buZcsW74nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <usvhi5$1preo$1@dont-email.me> <usvs3p$1sokc$6@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:54:26 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f3eb961a063c3bce678c6e8a0c550c7"; logging-data="1994753"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TQHiDBRoS7z73V7hSyK28" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ht1oK/zQwq/tcdaw2ahw0RP40m8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <usvs3p$1sokc$6@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 28069 On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/14/24 12:01 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/14/2024 11:58 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/13/2024 10:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/13/2024 1:16 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/12/2024 09:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/12/2024 08:23 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========