| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2vo5c$26570$1@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Linz's proofs and other undecidable decision problems --- Key feedback from Mike Terry Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 12:31:40 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v2vo5c$26570$1@i2pn2.org> References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <urpn7p$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> <v2ubnu$390rk$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 16:31:40 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2299104"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v2ubnu$390rk$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 13231 Lines: 255 On 5/25/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote: > 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: ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========