*As soon as this is understood to be correct then*
The inability to do the logically impossible never places any actual
limits on anyone or anything.
Then it is understood that the logical impossibility of solving the
halting problem the way it is currently defined places no actual limit
on computation.
It is equally logically impossible to define a CAD system that correctly draws square circles.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:20:18 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:try to rebut this by pointing out that square circles don't exist, you say that because they don't, your system's failure to draw them is not a problem and that therefore you are perfectly entitled to insist that your system can draw them.
*As soon as this is understood to be correct then*
The inability to do the logically impossible never places any actual
limits on anyone or anything.
Then it is understood that the logical impossibility of solving the
halting problem the way it is currently defined places no actual limit
on computation.
It is equally logically impossible to define a CAD system that correctly
draws square circles.
Exactly. However, the equivalent to what you are saying is to say that that everyone's proof that it is impossible to define a CAD system that draws square circles is wrong, and that you do actually have a CAD system which does so. When other people
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:20:18 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:try to rebut this by pointing out that square circles don't exist, you say that because they don't, your system's failure to draw them is not a problem and that therefore you are perfectly entitled to insist that your system can draw them.
*As soon as this is understood to be correct then*
The inability to do the logically impossible never places any actual
limits on anyone or anything.
Then it is understood that the logical impossibility of solving the
halting problem the way it is currently defined places no actual limit
on computation.
It is equally logically impossible to define a CAD system that correctly
draws square circles.
Exactly. However, the equivalent to what you are saying is to say that that everyone's proof that it is impossible to define a CAD system that draws square circles is wrong, and that you do actually have a CAD system which does so. When other people
On 10/19/2023 6:21 AM, Paul N wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:20:18 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
*As soon as this is understood to be correct then*
The inability to do the logically impossible never places any actual
limits on anyone or anything.
Then it is understood that the logical impossibility of solving the
halting problem the way it is currently defined places no actual limit
on computation.
It is equally logically impossible to define a CAD system that correctly >>> draws square circles.
Exactly. However, the equivalent to what you are saying is to say that
that everyone's proof that it is impossible to define a CAD system
that draws square circles is wrong, and that you do actually have a
CAD system which does so. When other people try to rebut this by
pointing out that square circles don't exist, you say that because
they don't, your system's failure to draw them is not a problem and
that therefore you are perfectly entitled to insist that your system
can draw them.
When a halt decider H is required to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of D that does the opposite of whatever H says that
it will do this is is merely a logically impossible requirement exactly
like requiring a CAD system to draw square circles.
When we change the requirement so that it is not logically
impossible then termination analyzer H is correct to report
that D correctly simulated by H will never terminate normally
because D specified recursive simulation to H.
The correct simulation of D by H must include the call from D to H that specifies that D calls H in recursive simulation.
Consistently all of the reviewers of my work insist that H must ignore
this recursive simulation and report that D(D) halts because when H does
not ignore this recursive simulation and aborts its simulation D(D) does halt. *They have no idea that their view is inconsistent*
On 10/20/2023 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/19/2023 6:21 AM, Paul N wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:20:18 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
*As soon as this is understood to be correct then*
The inability to do the logically impossible never places any actual
limits on anyone or anything.
Then it is understood that the logical impossibility of solving the
halting problem the way it is currently defined places no actual limit >>>> on computation.
It is equally logically impossible to define a CAD system that
correctly
draws square circles.
Exactly. However, the equivalent to what you are saying is to say
that that everyone's proof that it is impossible to define a CAD
system that draws square circles is wrong, and that you do actually
have a CAD system which does so. When other people try to rebut this
by pointing out that square circles don't exist, you say that because
they don't, your system's failure to draw them is not a problem and
that therefore you are perfectly entitled to insist that your system
can draw them.
When a halt decider H is required to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of D that does the opposite of whatever H says that
it will do this is is merely a logically impossible requirement exactly
like requiring a CAD system to draw square circles.
When we change the requirement so that it is not logically
impossible then termination analyzer H is correct to report
that D correctly simulated by H will never terminate normally
because D specified recursive simulation to H.
The correct simulation of D by H must include the call from D to H that
specifies that D calls H in recursive simulation.
Consistently all of the reviewers of my work insist that H must ignore
this recursive simulation and report that D(D) halts because when H does
not ignore this recursive simulation and aborts its simulation D(D) does
halt. *They have no idea that their view is inconsistent*
When the definition of the halting problem results in requirement that
cannot be met because this requirement is a logical impossibility it is
this problem definition that must be rejected. The inability to do the logically impossible never derives any limitation on anyone or anything.
The logical impossibility of solving the halting problem (within its
current definition) is exactly the same as the logical impossibility of creating a CAD system that correctly draws square circles.
On 10/19/2023 6:21 AM, Paul N wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:20:18 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
*As soon as this is understood to be correct then*
The inability to do the logically impossible never places any actual
limits on anyone or anything.
Then it is understood that the logical impossibility of solving the
halting problem the way it is currently defined places no actual limit
on computation.
It is equally logically impossible to define a CAD system that correctly >>> draws square circles.
Exactly. However, the equivalent to what you are saying is to say that
that everyone's proof that it is impossible to define a CAD system
that draws square circles is wrong, and that you do actually have a
CAD system which does so. When other people try to rebut this by
pointing out that square circles don't exist, you say that because
they don't, your system's failure to draw them is not a problem and
that therefore you are perfectly entitled to insist that your system
can draw them.
When a halt decider H is required to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of D that does the opposite of whatever H says that
it will do this is is merely a logically impossible requirement exactly
like requiring a CAD system to draw square circles.
When we change the requirement so that it is not logically
impossible then termination analyzer H is correct to report
that D correctly simulated by H will never terminate normally
because D specified recursive simulation to H.
The correct simulation of D by H must include the call from D to H that specifies that D calls H in recursive simulation.
Consistently all of the reviewers of my work insist that H must ignore
this recursive simulation and report that D(D) halts because when H does
not ignore this recursive simulation and aborts its simulation D(D) does halt. *They have no idea that their view is inconsistent*
On 10/19/2023 6:21 AM, Paul N wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 4:20:18 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
*As soon as this is understood to be correct then*
The inability to do the logically impossible never places any actual
limits on anyone or anything.
Then it is understood that the logical impossibility of solving the
halting problem the way it is currently defined places no actual limit
on computation.
It is equally logically impossible to define a CAD system that correctly >>> draws square circles.
Exactly. However, the equivalent to what you are saying is to say that
that everyone's proof that it is impossible to define a CAD system
that draws square circles is wrong, and that you do actually have a
CAD system which does so. When other people try to rebut this by
pointing out that square circles don't exist, you say that because
they don't, your system's failure to draw them is not a problem and
that therefore you are perfectly entitled to insist that your system
can draw them.
When a halt decider H is required to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of D that does the opposite of whatever H says that
it will do this is is merely a logically impossible requirement exactly
like requiring a CAD system to draw square circles.
When we change the requirement so that it is not logically
impossible then termination analyzer H is correct to report
that D correctly simulated by H will never terminate normally
because D specified recursive simulation to H.
The correct simulation of D by H must include the call from D to H that specifies that D calls H in recursive simulation.
Consistently all of the reviewers of my work insist that H must ignore
this recursive simulation and report that D(D) halts because when H does
not ignore this recursive simulation and aborts its simulation D(D) does halt. *They have no idea that their view is inconsistent*
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 104:40:14 |
Calls: | 6,660 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,335,177 |