1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.LOGIC

  • Re: Some definitions for Olcott

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Jan 12 10:27:53 2024
    On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:

    On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
    On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:

    1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between.
    2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
    3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt.
    4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether >>>>> P(I) halts or not.
    5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is wrong.
    6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.

    Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider".

    7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY >>>>> NO EXCEPTIONS.

    The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the
    inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
    should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is
    hard to implement).

    Mikko



    The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
    yes/no question has a correct answer.

    No, it isn't.
    It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
    SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.

    Do you refute this definition?

    Yes I do.

    Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.

    Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
    does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
    semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Jan 13 10:56:31 2024
    On 2024-01-12 16:29:43 +0000, olcott said:

    On 1/12/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:

    On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
    On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:

    1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no in-between. >>>>>>> 2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
    3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't halt. >>>>>>> 4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines whether >>>>>>> P(I) halts or not.
    5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't halt is wrong.
    6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program halts is wrong.

    Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting decider". >>>>>>
    7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH ABSOLUTELY >>>>>>> NO EXCEPTIONS.

    The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the >>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider
    should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is >>>>>> hard to implement).

    Mikko



    The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct
    yes/no question has a correct answer.

    No, it isn't.
    It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY
    SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.

    Do you refute this definition?

    Yes I do.

    Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.

    Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
    does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
    semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.

    Mikko


    01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
    02 {
    03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
    04 if (Halt_Status)
    05 HERE: goto HERE;
    06 return Halt_Status;
    07 }
    08
    09 void main()
    10 {
    11 H(D,D);
    12 }

    It is a verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own line 06 and halt. Changing the subject to some other computation is the fallacy of equivocation error or the strawman error.

    A decider must compute the mapping from an input finite string to an
    accept or reject state on the basis of a property of this finite string input. Referring to the properties of non-inputs is not allowed.

    That requirement only applies when the input is valid. If the input
    is not valid a decider may do something else instead of accepting
    or rejecting.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Jan 13 15:41:41 2024
    On 1/13/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 1/13/2024 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-12 16:29:43 +0000, olcott said:

    On 1/12/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-12 04:23:56 +0000, olcott said:

    On 1/11/2024 10:11 PM, immibis wrote:
    On 1/10/24 15:21, olcott wrote:
    On 1/10/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-10 07:19:25 +0000, immibis said:

    1. Every P(I) either halts or doesn't halt. There is no
    in-between.
    2. P(I) halts iff the direct execution of P(I) halts.
    3. P(I) doesn't halt iff the direct execution of P(I) doesn't >>>>>>>>> halt.
    4. A halting decider is a program or algorithm that determines >>>>>>>>> whether P(I) halts or not.
    5. Any algorithm that determines that a halting program doesn't >>>>>>>>> halt is wrong.
    6. Any algorithm that determines that a non-halting program
    halts is wrong.

    Instead of "wrong" it would be better to say "not a halting
    decider".

    7. The input to a halting decider is ANY VALID PROGRAM WITH
    ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS.

    The input should be syntactically correct. A syntax error makes the >>>>>>>> inut invalid. If there is a syntax error in the input the decider >>>>>>>> should halt without answering "yes" or "no" (any other behaviour is >>>>>>>> hard to implement).

    Mikko



    The above is the same as saying that every syntactically correct >>>>>>> yes/no question has a correct answer.

    No, it isn't.
    It's the same as saying that THE INPUT TO A HALTING DECIDER IS ANY >>>>>> SYNTACTICALLY VALID PROGRAM AND INPUT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS. >>>>>>
    Do you refute this definition?

    Yes I do.

    Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as semantically unsound.

    Note that Olcott's halt decider, according to recent descriptions,
    does not reject the input and does not say anything about its
    semantical soundness but simply gives a wrong answer.

    Mikko


    01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
    02 {
    03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
    04   if (Halt_Status)
    05     HERE: goto HERE;
    06   return Halt_Status;
    07 }
    08
    09 void main()
    10 {
    11   H(D,D);
    12 }

    It is a verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
    reach its own line 06 and halt. Changing the subject to some other
    computation is the fallacy of equivocation error or the strawman error.

    A decider must compute the mapping from an input finite string to an
    accept or reject state on the basis of a property of this finite string
    input. Referring to the properties of non-inputs is not allowed.

    That requirement only applies when the input is valid. If the input
    is not valid a decider may do something else instead of accepting
    or rejecting.

    Mikko


    H accepts its input when D correctly simulated by H reaches its
    own line 06 and terminates normally, otherwise H rejects this input.
    H is not allowed to report on the behavior of non-inputs.



    Then H is just not a Halt Decider, and actually doesn't exist, as the
    only machines that do an actual correct simulation are UTMs, and they
    never abort, and just H isn't allowed to "reject" the input.

    You are just proving your ignorance and stupidity.

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