On 2/29/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:50 PM, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:27 -0600, olcott wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:15 PM, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:07 -0600, olcott wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:00 PM, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:51 -0600, olcott wrote:
On 2/29/2024 2:48 PM, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 13:46 -0600, olcott wrote:
On 2/29/2024 1:37 PM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-02-29 15:51:56 +0000, olcott said:
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (in a separate memory space) merely needs to report on
A Turing machine is not in any memory space.
That no memory space is specified because Turing machines
are imaginary fictions does not entail that they have no
memory space. The actual memory space of actual Turing
machines is the human memory where these ideas are located.
The entire notion of undecidability when it depends on
epistemological antinomies is incoherent.
People that learn these things by rote never notice this.
Philosophers that examine these things looking for
incoherence find it.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
So, do you agree what GUR says?
People believes GUR. Why struggle so painfully, playing idiot
everyday ?
Give in, my friend.
Graphical User Robots?
The survival of the species depends on a correct understanding of >>>>>>> truth.
People believes GUR are going to survive.
People does not believe GUR are going to vanish.
What the Hell is GUR ?
Selective memory?
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M/m/XgvkLGOQAwAJ
Basically, GUR says that no one even your god can defy that HP is
undecidable.
I simplify that down to this.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
The general notion of decision problem undecidability is fundamentally
flawed in all of those cases where a decider is required to correctly
answer a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
When we account for this then epistemological antinomies are always
excluded from the domain of every decision problem making all of
these decision problems decidable.
It seems you try to change what the halting problem again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an
arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will
finish running, or continue to run
forever....
This wiki definition had been shown many times. But, since your
English is
terrible, you often read it as something else (actually, deliberately
interpreted it differently, so called 'lie')
If you want to refute Halting Problem, you must first understand what the
problem is about, right? You never hit the target that every one can
see, but POOP.
If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question:
Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
Yes, SOME questions are unanswerable by form.
The Halting question isn't.
You try to LIE by claiming it to be "isomorphic" to your POOP question,
but it isn't.
You POOP is a self-contradictory question, and thus not-answerable, and
perhaps arguable isn't a valid question.
That arguement doesn't apply to the actual Halting Question, which is
perfectly valid to ask, and is wanted to be asked in a number of cases.
(Maybe not for this particular input, but for other inputs).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)