| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2ubnu$390rk$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Linz's proofs and other undecidable decision problems --- Key feedback from Mike Terry Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 22:53:33 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 249 Message-ID: <v2ubnu$390rk$1@dont-email.me> References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uroob5$6c32$1@dont-email.me> <urpn7p$fetm$3@dont-email.me> <urq96s$m03b$9@dont-email.me> <urqmeg$p5i6$1@dont-email.me> <urqmv9$p6un$1@dont-email.me> <c2c69a25eecce5dc88cc3a979ee5cf9e4af2b67f.camel@gmail.com> <urqqo0$q1gd$1@dont-email.me> <94aaf99a4347e3fce0773fdd12001c3f03e3c1ea.camel@gmail.com> <urqrlk$q7ed$1@dont-email.me> <65a324cfb867c0219344ca9a767846930119784c.camel@gmail.com> <urqsr6$qgjj$1@dont-email.me> <1282f25b73bb9202a0acfc35c7a1e698eb05c5d6.camel@gmail.com> <urquoh$qrnj$1@dont-email.me> <c6d02e67407a43ebd50eab93dad01cb10dcc404b.camel@gmail.com> <urqviq$qrnj$2@dont-email.me> <a24a41a5fd0631d7dcca11af5bdc9819e3812cc7.camel@gmail.com> <urr0g7$r6eq$1@dont-email.me> <urregj$cbpo$2@i2pn2.org> <urrirc$12055$3@dont-email.me> <urrkup$cbpo$7@i2pn2.org> <urrrnf$13jnk$1@dont-email.me> <ROKdnSw4i6cUjn_4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <urt4qb$1bs5i$3@dont-email.me> <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 05:53:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3441524"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MEJKoFVa5J3uZtnzvHY4X" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/6dJwHZyEBBG3Z+PV93gWLNW0Do= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Bytes: 12770 On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 01/03/2024 17:55, olcott wrote: >> On 3/1/2024 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 01/03/2024 06:14, olcott wrote: >>>> On 2/29/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 2/29/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 2/29/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to report on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is not in any memory space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no memory space is specified because Turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are imaginary fictions does not entail that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is the human memory where these ideas are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> located. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies is incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that learn these things by rote never notice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophers that examine these things looking for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence find it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, do you agree what GUR says? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> playing idiot everyday ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give in, my friend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphical User Robots? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The survival of the species depends on a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People believes GUR are going to survive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People does not believe GUR are going to vanish. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the Hell is GUR ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Selective memory? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HP is undecidable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I simplify that down to this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The general notion of decision problem undecidability is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we account for this then epistemological antinomies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>> excluded from the domain of every decision problem making >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these decision problems decidable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you try to change what the halting problem again. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem >>>>>>>>>>>>> of determining, from a description >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the >>>>>>>>>>>>> program will finish running, or continue >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> run >>>>>>>>>>>>> forever.... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since >>>>>>>>>>>>> your English is >>>>>>>>>>>>> terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, >>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately >>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted it differently, so called 'lie') >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what the >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is about, right? You never hit the target that >>>>>>>>>>>>> every one can see, but POOP. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to >>>>>>>>>>> sci.logic !!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this >>>>>>>>>>>> question: >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is not the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is another problem (not the HP neither) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is one of many problems that is >>>>>>>>>> only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability >>>>>>>>>> incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory >>>>>>>>>> (thus incorrect) question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems >>>>>>>> that rely on self-contradictory input to determine >>>>>>>> undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the >>>>>>>> domain of any and all decision problems. This applies >>>>>>>> to the Halting Problem and many others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't >>>>>>> actually Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are >>>>>>> given certain inputs. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No not at all simply make a Turing Machine that does this: >>>>>> >>>>>> LP = "This sentence is not true." >>>>>> Boolean True(English, LP) is false >>>>>> Boolean True(English, ~LP) is false >>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========