On 10/20/23 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
science professor:
The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
the logically impossible.
So, your are trying to do an appeal to authority without specifying the authority?
Also, the problem DOESN'T 'require' that the decider do that, it asks if
it is possible for a decider to figure out for all inputs (including
that one).
Since it is impossible to give that correct answer, the answer is that
there does not exists such a decider, and thus the Halting Funciton is non-computable.
The Halting Question always does have a correct answer, so it is a valid problem.
Either you are lying about your "PhD Computer Science Professor" or he
is just mistaken.
This is why "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. Something you
don't seem to understand.
On 10/21/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
science professor:
The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
the logically impossible.
Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
always say what every other program D will do when D is
defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
definition of the halting problem does not limit what
computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
limits what is computable.
This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
to every other logical impossibility.
The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
unsatisfiable thus invalid.
That fact that the program specification for a halt deciderWhen the halting function is defined to report on the
is unsatisfiable proves that it is the same as a question
that has been defined to not possibly have any correct answer.
behavior of the direct execution of its inputs it gets
stymied by self-contradictory inputs and this is what
makes it unsatisfiable.
When it is defined to report on the actual behavior
of its actual input is does not get stymied.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:48:36 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:When the halting function is defined to report on the
On 10/20/2023 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/20/2023 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
These verbatim words were approved by a PhD computer
science professor:
The gist of the issue with the halting problem seems to be
that the whole notion of decision problem undecidability is
inherently flawed in that it requires the logically impossible.
Requiring a halt decider H to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of input D when D has been defined to do
the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns is
simply an incorrect problem definition because it requires
the logically impossible.
Since it is a {logical impossibility} for any program H to
always say what every other program D will do when D is
defined to do the opposite of whatever H says solving this
definition of the halting problem does not limit what
computers can do any more than the {logical impossibility}
of making a CAD system that correctly draws square circles
limits what is computable.
This definition of the halting problem has an unsatisfiable
specification making it a logical impossibility thus isomorphic
to every other logical impossibility.
The program specification for a halt decider proves that it is
unsatisfiable thus invalid.
That fact that the program specification for a halt decider
is unsatisfiable proves that it is the same as a question
that has been defined to not possibly have any correct answer.
behavior of the direct execution of its inputs it gets
stymied by self-contradictory inputs and this is what
makes it unsatisfiable.
When it is defined to report on the actual behavior
of its actual input is does not get stymied.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
How can you pin anything down if you cannot decide on it?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:12:53 |
| Calls: | 6,667 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,216 |
| Messages: | 5,337,350 |