• Re: The Halting problem is an incorrect question

    From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 24 17:04:51 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory

    Le 24/12/2023 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :
    On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
    On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
    *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

    Then don't post it to comp.theory.


    This also equally applies to computability.
    Some of the basic concepts of computability
    have incoherence hard-wired into them.

    For example three computer scientists essentially
    agree that the halting problem is essentially
    a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

    Anyone can find three idiots.


    The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
    when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

    When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a different meaning thus is a different question.

    Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
    have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
    context of who is asked.

    As a concrete example the question:
    "Are you a little girl?"
    has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

    https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

    A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
    said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God, court documents show.

    Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in
    March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
    During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
    pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
    seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100
    magazines and pictures of child pornography.

    According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
    the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
    he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
    court documents said.

    Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
    pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy County,
    and his bond was set at $200,000.

    The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
    appearance is scheduled for May 4.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Dec 24 12:43:18 2023
    XPost: sci.math, comp.theory

    On 12/24/23 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
    On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
    *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

    Then don't post it to comp.theory.


    This also equally applies to computability.
    Some of the basic concepts of computability
    have incoherence hard-wired into them.

    For example three computer scientists essentially
    agree that the halting problem is essentially
    a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

    Anyone can find three idiots.


    The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
    when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

    So, what is "Self-Contradictory" about the actual problem?

    Do you agree that all actual programs, as defined in Computability
    Theory, will either halt of not?

    (If not, show one example of an actual program that will either
    sometimes halt and sometimes not when given the exact say input, or will somehow neither halt or not)


    When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a different meaning thus is a different question.

    How?

    Does the input D represent a program that will halt with its specified
    input or not?

    How can that depend on who you ask to try to predict it actual behavior?

    Maybe your problem is that your "Termination analyzer" isn't trying to determine that answer to the wrong question. It isn't being asked if
    "Its" simulation will halt, it is being asked if the program when run
    will halt, and any "simulation" attempted of that input MUST match that behavior to be a valid substitution.


    Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
    have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
    context of who is asked.

    And the context is FULLY specified in the question. It is asking about
    the behavior of the actual execution of the program described to it.


    As a concrete example the question:
    "Are you a little girl?"
    has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

    And that example needs the pronoun "You", there is no equivalent to a
    pronoun in the actual halting question.

    "Does the machine and input represented by the input Halt when run"

    No pronoun to change the context.


    H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c>

    So?

    H gives the wrong answer, so isn't correct.

    H1 isn't the machine that your particular D was built to refute, so it
    giving the right answer is meaningless.

    Remember, D includes the copy of the code of the decider that it is to
    refute, so, since D doesn't include H1's code, it can't be the needed
    input to show H1 wrong.

    You are just proving you don't understand any of the basic terms.


    Note, your programs also fail to actually meet the requirements as you
    have no "seperate" program "H" (or "H1") and input "D" but just one
    bundled mess that can not actually be decomposed into the needed
    independent machine and input.

    This just shows your total lack of understanding of the problem.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Dec 24 12:54:17 2023
    XPost: sci.math, comp.theory

    On 12/24/23 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 12/24/2023 10:04 AM, Python wrote:
    Le 24/12/2023 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :
    On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
    On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
    *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

    Then don't post it to comp.theory.


    This also equally applies to computability.
    Some of the basic concepts of computability
    have incoherence hard-wired into them.

    For example three computer scientists essentially
    agree that the halting problem is essentially
    a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

    Anyone can find three idiots.


    The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
    when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

    When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
    different meaning thus is a different question.

    Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
    have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
    context of who is asked.

    As a concrete example the question:
    "Are you a little girl?"
    has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

    https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

    A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
    said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
    court documents show.

    Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
    in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
    investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
    with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
    reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
    than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

    According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
    believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
    also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
    he was God, court documents said.

    Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
    pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
    County, and his bond was set at $200,000.

    The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
    appearance is scheduled for May 4.



    Case dismissed November 17, 2016
    Ad Hominem does not count as a rebuttal.


    So, do you deny that you WERE found with those materials?
    or that you made the claim indicated?

    Note, "Case Dismissed" doesn't mean found innocent, or charges found to
    be incorrect.

    It means that for some reason they decided not to proceed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From immibis@21:1/5 to Python on Sun Dec 24 19:28:30 2023
    XPost: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory

    On 12/24/23 17:04, Python wrote:

    https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

    A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
    said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God, court documents show.

    Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in
    March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
    During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
    pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
    seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

    According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
    the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
    he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
    court documents said.

    Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
    pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy County,
    and his bond was set at $200,000.

    The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court appearance is scheduled for May 4.


    Geo-blocked. This can't be the same Peter Olcott... can it? This one
    doesn't call himself God.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to immibis on Sun Dec 24 13:40:03 2023
    XPost: sci.math, comp.theory

    On 12/24/23 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 12/24/23 17:04, Python wrote:

    https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

    A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
    said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
    court documents show.

    Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
    in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
    investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
    with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
    reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
    than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

    According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
    believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
    also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
    he was God, court documents said.

    Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
    pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
    County, and his bond was set at $200,000.

    The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
    appearance is scheduled for May 4.


    Geo-blocked. This can't be the same Peter Olcott... can it? This one
    doesn't call himself God.

    He has effectively admitted that this case refers to him. He seems to
    think that just because the courts seemed to have dropped the case
    (haven't heard the basis of that) that this means what happened didn't
    happen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)