Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 11:01:25 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <vg4pp5$3nmot$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org> <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me> <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org> <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me> <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org> <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org> <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me> <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me> <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me> <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me> <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me> <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org> <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b1h$373eq$1@dont-email.me> <vg2g2c$37lpn$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 10:01:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac2ed10f994a6b2c09b09e40230988bc";
	logging-data="3922717"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DL1DMS4WOyLMr01mOyeJe"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SRhmjvJc8BR6+3uW2ipQbJYZzfc=
Bytes: 5121

On 2024-11-01 12:03:24 +0000, olcott said:

> On 11/1/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-31 23:43:41 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
>>>>>>>>> less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
>>>>>>>>> responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>     I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.
>>>>>>> Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or a liar
>>>>>>> I may politely pretend to believe.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these ways!
>>>>>> Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He is quite
>>>>>> often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or similar,
>>>>>> but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student in terms
>>>>>> of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] believing that he
>>>>>> has a unique insight.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
>>>>> the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
>>>>> the current received view of the theory of computation
>>>>> is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
>>>>> viewed as incorrect.
>>>> 
>>>> So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing you 
>>>> might come up with has any bearing on the original halting problem 
>>>> because you are working in a new framework?
>>> 
>>> I am admitting one of two things:
>>> (1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
>>> as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
>>> actual input finite string.
>> 
>> The finite strings specifying the behaviour are not a part
>> of the halting problem. Any solution is required to contain
>> encoding rules for the creation of those strings.
> 
> Sure they are.

It is of course possible to present the problem in either way without
changing anything important. The most common way is to state that the
decider shall use descriptions of the Turing machine and the input
but the encoding rules are not specified. You can present the problem
with specific encoding rules or stating that the encoding of a specific
UTM shall be used. Doing so reduces the space of possible solutions but
does not affect the solvability.

So the most common presentation is that encoding rules are a part of
the solution but including them in the problem does not make a significant
difference.

>>> (2) I am resolving the halting problem in a way that is
>>> comparable to the way that ZFC resolved Russell's Paradox.
>> 
>> Problems shall be solved, not resolved. The expression "resolving
>> the halting problem" does not mean anything because the types of
>> the words are not compatible. A paradox is a different type so
>> it can be resolved.
> 
> It is iffy to say that ZFC solved Russell's Paradox because
> it is not solving the original problem it is redefining the
> basis of the problem.

Then don't say so. It would be better to say that ZFC (and before
it ZF and Z) avoids Russell's paradox.

-- 
Mikko