On 2024-03-01 02:28:34 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 2/29/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/29/2024 4:24 PM, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 16:13 -0600, olcott wrote:
On 2/29/2024 4:06 PM, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:59 -0600, 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.
Note: My email was delivered strangely. It swapped to sci.logic !!!
If we have the decision problem that no one can answer this question: >>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
This is not the halting problem.
Someone has to point out that there is something wrong with it.
This is another problem (not the HP neither)
The halting problem is one of many problems that is
only "undecidable" because the notion of decidability
incorrectly requires a correct answer to a self-contradictory
(thus incorrect) question.
What is the 'correct answer' to all HP like problems ?
The correct answer to all undecidable decision problems
that rely on self-contradictory input to determine
undecidability is to reject this input as outside of the
domain of any and all decision problems. This applies
to the Halting Problem and many others.
In other words, just define that some Turing Machines aren't actually
Turing Machines, or aren't Turing Machines if they are given certain
inputs.
That is just admitting that the system isn't actually decidable, by
trying to outlaw the problems.
The issue then is, you can't tell if a thing that looks like and acts
lie a Turing Machine is actually a PO-Turing Machine, until you can
confirm that it doesn't have any of these contradictory properties.
My guess is that detecting that is probably non-computable, so you
can't tell for sure if what you have is actually a PO-Turing Machine or
not
If the restrictions on the acceptability of a Turing macine are sufficiently strong both the restricted halting problem and the membership or the
restricted domain are Turing solvable. For example, if the head can only move in one direction.
--
Mikko
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)